Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contents
1.0
1.1
Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
2.0
2.1
2.2
Northwest Slope Failure Area and Lower North Stream Channel ............................................................... 6
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
Stratigraphy ...............................................................................................................................................................24
3.1.3
3.2
Slope-Stability-Simulation Modeling....................................................................................................................25
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
Saturation and Loss of Stability from Elevated Water Table and Ponding.......................................27
3.2.5
3.3
3.3.1
4.0
3.3.1.1
3.3.1.2
Moderate-Risk Areas....................................................................................................................................30
3.3.1.3
4.1
4.1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\DRAFT Report Cover-Lilydale Regional Park.docx
5.0
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................33
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.0
5.5.1
Middle and West Clay Pits, Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook, and Bruce Vento Spur of the
Brickyard Access Trail (Southern Brickyard Area) .......................................................................................39
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
References ............................................................................................................................................................................46
ii
List of Tables
Table 1-1
Table 3-1
Predicted slope-stability factors of safety, based on modeling various soil conditions ..... 29
Table 4-1
Peak flow rates for crossings along Cherokee Heights (locations on Large Figure 4-1) ..... 32
List of Figures
Figure 3-1
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2
Conceptual example of grading to a stable slope and installing a sheetpile wall to protect
the roadway ........................................................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 5-3
Figure 5-4
Study area
Stormwater modeling
Recommendations
List of Photos
Photo 2-1
West Clay Pit (at right) and area below Bruce Vento Overlook (center) from the air (photo
provided by the City of St. Paul) ................................................................................................................... 4
Photo 2-2
Erosion adjacent to the storm sewer outlet in Cherokee Heights ravine (May 2014 site
visit) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Photo 2-3
Cherokee Heights ravine slope failure (July 2014 site visit) ............................................................... 6
Photo 2-4
Scarp from pre-2014 slope failure (taken from Brickyard Trail Lower Falls waterfall area
during the May 2014 site visit) ...................................................................................................................... 7
Photo 2-5
Large 2014 slope failure from above (July 2014 site visit) .................................................................. 8
Photo 2-6
Large 2014 slope failure from below with inset showing seepage (July 2014 visit) ................. 8
Photo 2-7
Large slide, looking up through newly eroded stream channel (July 2014 site visit) .............. 9
Photo 2-8
Soil deposited at base of slide and newly eroded stream channel (July 2014 visit) ................ 9
iii
Photo 2-9
Erosion of the lower section of the Brickyard Trail and plugged culvert, resulting from the
Northwest Slope Failure (July 2014 site visit)........................................................................................ 10
Photo 2-10
2013 slide area, from top of East Clay Pit Falls, observed during the May 2014 visit .......... 10
Photo 2-11
2013 slide area, from below, as observed during the July 2014 site visit .................................. 11
Photo 2-12
Photo 2-13
Middle Clay Pit wallwith fresh soil scarp in upper right corner (July 2014 site visit) ........ 13
Photo 2-14
Silty sand soil over shale bedrock in West Clay Pit (May 2014 site visit) ................................... 13
Photo 2-15
Close-up of overhanging soil and root zone in West Clay Pit (May 2014 site visit) ............. 14
Photo 2-16
Seeping rock outcrop in Middle Clay Pit (July 2014 site visit) ....................................................... 14
Photo 2-17
Middle Clay Pit with snow/ice (from seepage) on face of shale (May 2014 visit) .................. 15
Photo 2-18
Middle Clay Pit with snow/ice (from seepage) on face of shale (May 2014 site visit) .......... 15
Photo 2-19
Photo 2-20
Brickyard TrailFossil/Brick Oven Section, plugged and exposed drain tile and erosion
(July 2014 site visit) .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Photo 2-21
Erosion on the Brickyard TrailFossil/Brick Oven Section, looking uphill from the bottom
of the trail (May 2014 site visit) .................................................................................................................. 18
Photo 2-22
View of slope failure above Brickyard TrailConnector Section, the source of soil on the
trail in Photo 2-23 (May 2014 site visit) .................................................................................................. 19
Photo 2-23
Soil on the Brickyard TrailConnector Section from slope failure shown in Photo 2-22
(May 2014 site visit) ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Photo 2-24
View of slope failure above the Brickyard TrailConnector Section, the source of soil on
the trail in the same location and shown in Photo 2-25 (July 2014 site visit).......................... 20
Photo 2-25
Soil on the Brickyard TrailConnector Section from slope failure shown in Photo 2-24
(July 2014 site visit) .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Photo 2-26
Slide below the Bruce Vento Spur of the Brickyard Access Trail (July 2014 site visit) .......... 21
Photo 2-27
"Sinkhole" along Brickyard Access TrailBluff Section; note sunken fence post (July 2014
visit) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Photo 2-28
Soil overhang, from above, at Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook (May 2014 site visit) ............... 22
Photo 5-1
Photo 5-2
Photo 5-3
Photo 5-4
Photo 5-5
Cross section view of Geoweb (Source: www.prestogeo.com, used with permission) ........... 38
Photo 5-6
Photo 5-7
Photo 5-8
Photo 5-9
Example of vegetated reinforced soil slope (VRSS) before vegetation reestablishes .......... 44
Photo 5-10
Photo 5-11
iv
Appendix B
Appendix C
Geotechnical Evaluation
Appendix D
Certifications
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Date
PE #: 19926
I hereby certify that the geotechnical section of this report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Date
PE #: 47821
vi
Page 1
Site observations
Photo: Middle Clay Pit wall with fresh soil scarp in upperright corner. The slopes above the pits are fairly steep with
former scarps evident at numerous locations. Soil slopes
at the corners of the clay pits seem prone to instability
and failure.
Page 3
Geotechnical analysis
HIGH RISK
MODERATE RISK
Stormwater analysis
LOW RISK
Areas categorized as low-risk have the following
features or characteristics:
Page 5
Recommendations
General recommendations for the Brickyard Area of
Lilydale Regional Park are listed below. More specific
recommendations related to (1) ravine stabilization/
stormwater management, (2) steep-slope stabilization,
and (3) erosion along the Brickyard Trail are outlined in the
column at right.
Steep-slope stabilization
1. Restrict access to the Middle and West Clay Pit areas and
the Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook (area outlined by reddashed line, Figure 3)
2. Relocate or mechanically stabilize the Bruce Vento Scenic
Overlook.
Page 6
Page 7
Some of the ways this water impacts slope stability are described at right.
INFILTRATION
Figure 4
PONDING
RUNOFF
Figure 6
Figure 5
Page 8
The Brickyard Trail, which extends from the park access at West Water Street near the Mississippi
River and the lower brick-making area to the top of the bluff.
Three historic clay pits, forming a topographical (near vertical) break between lower park
elevations and the upper portion of the park.
Ruins of a brick oven at the base of the bluff and several old foundations, presumably from
quarrying equipment.
Four fossil beds near the clay pits which attract fossil collectors (requiring a permit).
Echo Cave, a manmade feature carved into the white Cambrian sandstone rock adjacent to the
brick oven; in the early 1900s this sandstone was mined for its high silica content (used to make
glass), supporting the demand for glass bottles from nearby breweries.
Slope stability and erosion of the ravines and clay pits in the Brickyard Area have been ongoing concerns
for the City of St. Paul Department of Parks and Recreation (City) and its partner agencies.
Help the City and its partners gain a better overall understanding of slope-stability issues in the
Brickyard Area, particularly as they relate to proposed park features and restricted, permitted
active-use areas.
Identify and evaluate erosion issues along the Brickyard Trail and in other ravines within the
Brickyard Area.
Identify and prioritize stormwater management techniques to reduce erosion while maintaining
an aesthetic that is compatible with the unique natural geologic setting of the park.
The scope of work for this project was developed based on a January 23, 2014, meeting between Barr and
City staff and subsequent coordination. Specific work tasks identified to achieve the study objectives are
listed in the Table 1-1.
Table 1-1
Cherokee Regional Park (including the 60-inch culvert crossing under Cherokee Heights
Boulevard)
The Brickyard Trail (including the bluff section of the trail that runs along Cherokee Heights
Boulevard)
A second site visit was performed by Barr and City personnel on July 2, 2014, after heavy June
precipitation revealed additional slope-stability issues. The main areas of focus during this second visit
were a large slope failure toward the north end of the study area, a sink hole near the intersection of
Annapolis Street and Cherokee Heights Boulevard, and additional slope failures and loss of material along
the Brickyard Trail between the Middle and West Clay Pits
The field visits were specifically focused on and limited to park features within the study area. Potential
impacts to infrastructure beyond the boundary of the study area were outside the scope of this study.
Specific observations made during each site visit and subsequent analyses and conclusions are provided
in the following sections.
Large Figure 1-2 identifies the park features within the Brickyard Area referenced throughout this report.
The Brickyard Trail is labeled with additional section names for report purposes only (e.g., Brickyard Trail
Bluff Section).
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2011 LiDAR elevation data set was used to help
characterize the slopes throughout the Brickyard Area. Large Figure 1-3 shows the change in slope
throughout the Brickyard Area in terms of percent rise. The portions of the Brickyard Area shown in
orange and red hues on the figure represent the steepest areas (most notably, the clay pit walls). The
percent rise becomes increasingly larger as the topography becomes more vertical.
Photo 2-1
West Clay Pit (at right) and area below Bruce Vento Overlook (center) from the air
(photo provided by the City of St. Paul)
the culvert outlet and approximately midway to the East Clay Pit Falls (Photo 2-3). Erosion of the ravine
side slopes appears to be contributing to some of the instabilityremoving material from the toes of the
slopes, destabilizing the upper slopes, and causing slides into the ravine.
Just above the East Clay Pit Falls, a berm of soil directs the flow path of the stream roughly parallel to the
edge of the East Clay Pit wall. Several sections of broken pipe were observed in this area; two sections
appear to be held in place by the roots of a mature tree above the waterfall (Brickyard Trail Lower Falls)
and parallel to the stream flow (2013 report by Northern Technologies, Inc. [NTI], Appendix D, photo #9).
Although the original purpose and use of the pipe sections is unknown, they no longer convey flow and
water spills over the falls to the downstream channel.
Photo 2-2
Erosion adjacent to the storm sewer outlet in Cherokee Heights ravine (May 2014
site visit)
Photo 2-3
2.2 Northwest Slope Failure Area and Lower North Stream Channel
During the May 2014 site visit, a slope failure scarp (exposed failure surface) was observed on the northto-northwest side of a stranded knob northwest of the Cherokee Heights Boulevard culvert and
stormwater ravine discussed in the previous section (Photo 2-4, Photo 2-5, and Photo 2-6). This scarp is
noted on Large Figure 1-2 as the Northwest Slope Failure. As viewed on an aerial photograph, the
stranded knob (noted on Large Figure 1-2 as the North Knob) is a rounded area which appears to be cut
off from the main bluff by a drainage trench (i.e., stranded). It does not appear to be a natural condition.
There is evidence of historic slope failure at this location, but nothing to suggest that the soil mass slid all
the way to the base of the bluff. This slope failure was best observed from the location of the Brickyard
Trail Lower Falls. Historic evidence of this slide area and previous disturbance in this general vicinity (likely
due to brickyard operations) could be seen on aerial photographs.
This historic slope failure (or slide) was reactivated during a wet period in June 2014. A large volume of
soil slid from this area, down the base of the bluff, and over the lower section of the Brickyard Trail and
culvert leading between the parking lot and the old brick oven (Photo 2-7 and Photo 2-8). The slide went
just north of the small falls (Brickyard Trail Lower Falls) and another historic structure/foundation with
enough force to topple mature trees and the chain link fence along the trail. It moved enough material to
deposit a few inches of soil over the lower section of the Brickyard Trail and completely buried the culvert
(Brickyard Trail Culvert) under the trail (Photo 2-9). Soils deposited at the slope toe temporarily blocked
the stream. During the July 2014 site visit these soils were seen eroding as the stream attempted to
reestablish a channel.
During the July 2014 site visit there appeared to be a concentrated seep about half-way up the newly
exposed scarp surface. Viewed from a distance, the seep flow was estimated to be several gallons per
minute and appeared to be flowing over the surface of the shale bedrock at the back of the new scarp.
The 2013 slope failure area (Photo 2-10 and Photo 2-11) discussed in the NTI report is generally located
at the southeast edge of the North Knob and adjacent to the East Clay Pit waterfall (Large Figure 1-2). The
mass of soil slid from the northwest side of the falls as shown in the photos included in Appendix D of the
NTI report.
At least two slope failures in the park have been associated with this North Knob area (Large Figure 1-2).
This area appears to be unstable and continued use of this area is not recommended.
Photo 2-4
Scarp from pre-2014 slope failure (taken from Brickyard Trail Lower Falls waterfall
area during the May 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-5
Large 2014 slope failure from above (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-6
Large 2014 slope failure from below with inset showing seepage (July 2014 visit)
Photo 2-7
Large slide, looking up through newly eroded stream channel (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-8
Soil deposited at base of slide and newly eroded stream channel (July 2014 visit)
Photo 2-9
Erosion of the lower section of the Brickyard Trail and plugged culvert, resulting
from the Northwest Slope Failure (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-10
2013 slide area, from top of East Clay Pit Falls, observed during the May 2014 visit
10
Photo 2-11
2013 slide area, from below, as observed during the July 2014 site visit
11
During both the site visits, water was observed seeping from the slopes at the upper soil/bedrock
interface, particularly in the Middle Clay Pit (Photo 2-16). This seepage, which freezes in the winter to
allow ice-climbing activities in the Middle Clay Pit (Photo 2-17 and Photo 2-18), illustrates that
groundwater infiltrates through the soils but does not readily penetrate the low-permeability shale.
Instead, it tends to flow along the surface of the bedrock to the face of the bluffs. The amount of seepage
appeared to vary from location to location and is likely influenced by drainage area, upstream
collection/piping, general groundwater conditions (i.e., high or low, wet or dry), and bedrock topography.
Photo 2-12
12
Photo 2-13
Middle Clay Pit wallwith fresh soil scarp in upper right corner (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-14
Silty sand soil over shale bedrock in West Clay Pit (May 2014 site visit)
13
Photo 2-15
Close-up of overhanging soil and root zone in West Clay Pit (May 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-16
Seeping rock outcrop in Middle Clay Pit (July 2014 site visit)
14
Photo 2-17
Middle Clay Pit with snow/ice (from seepage) on face of shale (May 2014 visit)
Photo 2-18
Middle Clay Pit with snow/ice (from seepage) on face of shale (May 2014 site
visit)
15
bluff. The sinkhole along the trail appears to be due to a defect or failure of the storm sewer pipe,
allowing soils to infiltrate the pipe. This infiltration removed soils from above/around the pipe and, over
time, lessened support of the overlying soils. The overlying soils bridged the infiltrated materials until the
cavity grew too large to span. It is our understanding that the Minnesota Department of Transportation is
working on repairing this pipe and the associated sinkhole.
Photo 2-19
17
Photo 2-20
Brickyard TrailFossil/Brick Oven Section, plugged and exposed drain tile and
erosion (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-21
Erosion on the Brickyard TrailFossil/Brick Oven Section, looking uphill from the
bottom of the trail (May 2014 site visit)
18
Photo 2-22
View of slope failure above Brickyard TrailConnector Section, the source of soil
on the trail in Photo 2-23 (May 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-23
Photo 2-24
View of slope failure above the Brickyard TrailConnector Section, the source of
soil on the trail in the same location and shown in Photo 2-25 (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-25
20
Photo 2-26
Slide below the Bruce Vento Spur of the Brickyard Access Trail (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 2-27
"Sinkhole" along Brickyard Access TrailBluff Section; note sunken fence post
(July 2014 visit)
21
Photo 2-28
Soil overhang, from above, at Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook (May 2014 site visit)
22
A total of five soil borings were completed (one as part of the previous NTI study, four by Barr). Boring
locations are shown on Large Figure 3-1 and described in Appendix C. An additional boring near the West
Clay Pit was proposed as part of this study, but was not taken due to access issues (described in Section
2.4). The termination depths of the borings ranged from approximately 50 to 104 feet below existing
grade, with most of the borings reaching about 100 feet below existing grade.
Soil samples were transported to Soil Engineering Testing (SET) of Richfield, Minnesota, for laboratory
analysis. Results from the laboratory analysis are included in Appendix C.
The upper bedrock encountered in the park is the lower portion of the Galena Group. The Galena
Limestone, a hard, buff-colored limestone rock, is mapped as the top bedrock unit near the park. Based
on soil borings performed for this study, the Galena Limestone was very thin to absent. The basal member
of the Galena Group is the Decorah Shale, a grayish-green shale rock with a high concentration of fossils
encountered below the site soils (Minnesota Geological Survey 1999). This is the primary bedrock unit in
the park and forms the walls of the three clay pits in the Brickyard Area. It was also the material mined for
brick-making.
3.1.2 Stratigraphy
The stratigraphy (rock and soil layers) of the site generally consists of sandy, glacially derived soils of
variable thickness overlying shale, then sandstone bedrock, as described in the site geology section of
Appendix C. Occasional clay seams were encountered in the soils and interbedded limestone layers were
seen in the Decorah Shale.
Cross sections interpreted from the boring logs are provided in Appendix C to illustrate the inferred
subsurface conditions. As an example, Figure 3-1 shows the stratigraphy for the Middle Clay Pit. The other
cross sections are similar, but with soil layers varying in order and thickness. (For modeling purposes the
presence of the limestone layers inter-bedded with the shale was not included.)
Figure 3-1
24
upper readings recorded during drilling indicated perched water, likely flowing through more permeable
soils, as opposed to a solid water table down to bedrock.
Seepage was observed weeping from many of the site slopes at the soil/bedrock interface, but not usually
seen higher in the slopes. Therefore, the groundwater was assumed to be generally located at the
soil/bedrock interface at most times of the year. Seepage was specifically noted near the top of the
bedrock in the Middle Clay Pit and the rock face in the North Ravine near the North Knob.
guidelines recommend factors of safety ranging from 1.3 to 1.5, depending on how long the slope
remains in a certain configuration (i.e., a lower factor of safety is required for temporary construction
slopes than would be required for permanent embankments). Thus, the minimum acceptable safety
factors for an engineered slope are often greater than the minimum safety factors observed for natural
slopes.
26
3.2.4 Saturation and Loss of Stability from Elevated Water Table and Ponding
Loss of suction can also be realized through elevation of the groundwater table following periods of
intense rainfall on or upstream of a site within the watershed.
To evaluate the potential for reduction of stability due to loss of suction forces, the groundwater level in
the model was incrementally raised (with an upstream boundary condition) until the minimum predicted
factor of safety for the slope was 1.0.
The increase in groundwater level modeled to reach a factor of safety of 1.0 was on the order of a few to
several feet. Due to the configuration of the slopes, the secondary slopes (Slope 2) for the Waterfall and
Cherokee Heights Ravine cross sections were not analyzed for a high groundwater condition.
Infiltration from ponding will also tend to reduce stability of the slopes. A storm event was modeled with
both dry (sunny day) and full pond conditions for a potential pond upstream from Cherokee Heights
Culvert. Analysis indicates that the stability of the bluff slope is below 1.0 if water is allowed to pond
upstream. If the pond is allowed to drain, the stability of the bluff slope is reducedbut still above 1.0.
3.2.5
There is diverse vegetation on the upper soil slopes of the study area and trees of various sizesfrom
saplings to mature 40-foot trees. There is also grass/weed vegetation that has formed carpet-like mats on
many of the parks slopes.
In certain scenarios, vegetation can help increase slope stability by reinforcing soils and absorbing water
that would otherwise increase moisture content. However, trees in the study area have not stabilized the
larger slides, as evidenced by the trees caught in the large 2014 landslide. Furthermore, trees that are
overhanging or near the edge of slopes may help trigger landslides when undermined, unstable, or blown
overdragging the surrounding soils down the slope.
The root mats formed from the grassy/weed vegetation is effective at stabilizing the surface of the slopes,
to a depth of approximately one foot. However, as seen on many of the slopes in the West and Middle
Clay Pits, these mats of root-reinforced soils appear to reach a critical condition and result in slope
failures. In fact, it appears that the soils on the slopes may actually store materials in the root mats,
potentially making the volume of the slides slightly larger than if the soils were allowed to ravel on unvegetated slopes. Therefore, caution should be exercised below steep, vegetated, natural slopes (i.e.,
against the steep slopes of the clay pits). And, because the failure surface extends well below the root
zones that bind the soils, neither trees nor grass/weed vegetation should be considered to stabilize the
upper soil slopes.
Ultimately, some form of surface vegetation should be placed on the park slopes. Otherwise, erosion will
create large amounts of downstream sediment that is both costly and time-consuming to manage. If
slopes are re-graded or existing vegetation is removed, vegetation that is suitable to park conditions and
able to minimize soil erosion is recommended. Removal of larger trees overhanging or near the edge of
27
the soil slopes may also be beneficial, reducing these as a trigger mechanism for slides and/or reducing
the volume of slide events.
28
Table 3-1
No Suction
With Suction
No Suction
With Suction
Water Table
Elevation to
Reduce Factor of
3
Safety to 1.0
(elevation in feet)
North end
0.75
1.40
0.75
1.29
921.5
Waterfall Landslide:
Slope 1
0.66
1.18
0.59
0.78
855
Waterfall Landslide:
Slope 2
0.83
2.34
0.83
1.91
--
Cherokee Heights:
Slope 1
0.70
1.53
0.70
1.11
918
Cherokee Heights:
Slope 1 (ponding)
0.70
1.03
0.47
0.52
--
Cherokee Heights:
Slope 2
1.34
1.53
1.48
2.33
--
Cherokee Heights:
Slope 2 (ponding)
1.34
1.53
1.48
2.01
--
0.68
1.22
0.68
0.92
910.5
0.58
1.11
0.58
0.73
901
Factor of Safety
Factor of Safety
Factors of safety are based on limited boring/subsurface investigations (May and June 2014) and the assumption that the
soil borings referenced in this report are representative of the identified locations.
The boring in the area of the West Clay Pit was not obtained due to access issues; soil conditions in the West Clay Pit
were assumed to be similar to the Middle Clay Pit.
The secondary slope (Slope 2) for the Waterfall and Cherokee Heights Ravine cross sections were not analyzed for high
groundwater condition. High groundwater condition was also not evaluated in the ponding analysis for the Cherokee
Heights Ravine section; see Table 4-6, Appendix C.
Portions of the study area were observed during two site visits.
29
Soil borings were completed and laboratory testing was performed to determine the subsurface
characteristics.
Slope-stability modeling was performed using parameters derived from the soil borings and
laboratory test results.
Based on these factors and engineering judgment gained from experience with slope-stability issues at
other project sites, the existing conditions (July 2014) of the study area were categorized as low-risk,
moderate-risk, or high-risk. These rating categories are specific to this project and not based on industry
standards. They are described below and shown in Large Figure 3-2.
Likelihood for persons to be caught in a slide from above the failure surface
Areas that were not observed during the May and July 2014 site visits, but generally have similar
characteristics to other low-risk areas within the study area
Note that no area of the park was considered no-risk. The uncertainty of weather, soil type, strength and
stratigraphy, and human activity always pose some risk due to unexpected movement of soils.
30
4.1
Site observations during the field visits identified erosion issues in some ravines within the Brickyard Area,
including significant erosion in the Cherokee Heights Ravine. High flow rates and velocities in this channel,
in combination with erodible, sandy soils appear to be (1) contributing to some localized instability of
adjacent slopes, (2) removing material from the toes of the slopes, (3) destabilizing the upper slopes, and
(4) causing slides into the ravine.
Site observations during the field visits also identified erosion issues along portions of the Brickyard Trail.
The erosion problems generally appear to be a result of concentrated stormwater runoff along the
31
straighter and steeper sections of the trail (particularly the Fossil/Brick Oven section of the trail). This has
been problematic along the trails lower reaches.
To adequately address the ravine and trail erosion issues, it is important to understand the flow rates and
flow velocities in the various channels throughout the Brickyard Area. Table 4-1 provides a summary of
the peak flow rates at the three main stormwater discharge points into the Brickyard Area for various
storm events. For all the storm events modeled, 6075% of the total peak stormwater discharge into the
Brickyard Area comes through culvert B (Cherokee Heights Culvert) on Large Figure 4-1. This discharges
to the Cherokee Heights Ravine.
Table 4-1
Peak flow rates for crossings along Cherokee Heights (locations on Large
Figure 4-1)
Peak Flow Rates (cfs)
Atlas 14
24-Hour
Storm
Event
Precipitation
Amount over a
24-Hour
Period (inches)
A: North Cherokee
Heights Tributary
B: Cherokee Heights
C: Freemont Avenue
Tributary
Tributary
(Main Basin)
Tributary Area: 47 Acres Tributary Area: 22 Acres
1 year
2.5
54
17
2 year
2.8
70
20
5 year
3.5
12
109
42
10 year
4.2
17
116
60
50 year
6.3
31
252
62*
100 year
7.5
37
295
62*
* Capacity limitations of the Fremont Avenue culvert result in surface overflows northward to the 60-inch culvert under
Cherokee Heights.
Since there is no known storm sewer pipe system actively conveying water within the Brickyard Area,
runoff from the Brickyard Area downstream of Cherokee Heights Boulevard generally flows overland
following the slope of the land. The estimated flow velocities within the ravine channels reflect flow from
the culverts under Cherokee Heights Boulevard combined with localized runoff from the Brickyard Area.
The peak flow velocities vary by reach, depending on contributing flow rate, channel shape, and channel
slope. The highest predicted peak velocities generally correspond with the reaches observed to have the
most significant erosionspecifically the 300-foot stretch of Cherokee Heights Ravine downstream of the
Cherokee Heights Culvert, the Lower North Stream Channel, and just downstream of the Cherokee
Heights Boulevard culvert near Fremont Avenue, all shown in Large Figure 4-1.
32
5.0 Recommendations
Large Figure 5-1 presents a summary of recommendations for erosion control and alternatives for
stabilizing steep slopes or restricting access to those slopes. Also included are recommendations
regarding public access to fossil hunting areas. It is important to state that all recommendations in this
report are Barrs opinion, based on limited subsurface investigation/soil borings, available topographic
and site information, modeling, and site investigations performed in May and July of 2014. Site
investigations were general in nature and did not include observations of the entire Brickyard Area and
study limits. All figures and recommendations are based on the conditions observed during the site visits.
Additional site visits, geotechnical investigation, subsurface investigation/borings, and soils testing must
be performed to refine the recommendations at specific areas of the park and address any changed
conditions.
Restrict accessAs further discussed in specific recommendations, restricting access to the two
areas shown on Large Figure 5-1 is recommended. An additional, parallel approach would be to
encourage park patrons to stay within the lowest risk areas of the park. Signage and/or fencing
can be used for both approaches.
Perform additional researchThe City should conduct research and consult with National Parks
staff and/or risk-planning professionals on industry-accepted best practices for managing risk in
natural park settings.
Re-vegetate slopesWhere feasible, the slopes of the park should be re-vegetated to minimize
erosion of the surface soils. Removing larger trees that overhang or are near the edge of slope
crests may also be beneficial. These trees can be a trigger mechanism for slides and/or increase
the volume of slide events. If slopes are re-graded or existing vegetation is removed, we
recommend that appropriate vegetation (as feasible) be placed to minimize soil erosion and the
downstream sediment that compromises water quality in Pickerel Lake.
33
Update informationLarge Figure 3-2 (potential for slope failure under existing conditions) and
other appropriate figures in this report should be re-evaluated and updated, as necessary,
following each inspection.
Consider monitoringThe City could consider monitoring techniques (tilt meters, inclinometers,
piezometers, etc.) to better evaluate changes in the park, including reductions in slope stability
from infiltration or groundwater and movement of slopes. However, costs associated with
monitoring equipment extend beyond installation, including maintenance and observation (e.g.,
regular measurement readings, data download, etc.). Additionally, monitoring is very site-specific;
therefore, several monitoring stations (depending on desired spacing along the bluff) would be
required to monitor the entire bluff line within the Brickyard Area. More specific
recommendations related to (1) ravine stabilization/stormwater management, (2) erosion along
the Brickyard Trail, and (3) stabilizing steep slopes are described in the following sections.
maintenance vehicles. Specific recommendations for ravine stabilization and stormwater management in
this area are listed below, in order of priority and operation. (A complete list of alternatives considered is
provided in Appendix A).
1.
Restrict access to the Cherokee Heights Ravine, North Ravine, and Lower North Stream Channel
area (as shown in Large Figure 5-1). A planning-level cost range for fencing this area is $112,000
$240,000. (Costs are highly dependent on the actual length and type of fencing selectedthis
estimate assumes fencing for the entire length of the restrict access area shown for the northern
part of the Brickyard Area). Note that restricting this area includes closing Fossil Site 2. Fossil
Site 1 is located outside the restrict access area. The restrict access area should be reassessed
once the following ravine stabilization/stormwater management recommendations have been
implemented.
2.
Stabilize the steep slopes in this area (as described in Section 5.5.3).
3.
Reestablish and stabilize the channel in the Lower North Stream Channel using river rock riprap,
as shown in Photo 5-1 (planning-level cost range: $161,000$345,000). Boulder riffles, as shown in
Photo 5-2, could potentially be added for aesthetics and to help reduce flow velocities (planninglevel cost range: $9,000$18,000).
4.
Once the ravine is reestablished and stabilized, replace the Brickyard Trail Culvert with a small
span bridge, similar to the example shown in Photo 5-3 (planning level cost range: $63,000
$135,000).
The Cherokee Heights Ravine, starting at Cherokee Heights Boulevard (including the culvert) and
extending downstream approximately 300 feet, is being addressed through the Cherokee Heights Culvert
Analysis and Erosion Control Feasibility Study, commissioned by the Lower Mississippi River Watershed
Management Organization. The goals of that project are to reduce erosion potential by stabilizing the
approximately 300 feet of channel between the 60-inch Cherokee Heights Culvert and the water fall and
reducing peak flow rates and velocities, as feasible. Therefore, no recommendations for this portion of the
Cherokee Heights Ravine are provided in this report. However, it is important to note the difference
between the slope-stability issues in this area and the ravine/channel erosion due to stormwater. It is our
opinion that even if erosion due to stormwater runoff is addressed in this stretch of the Cherokee Heights
ravine, the potential for slope failure still exists, as reflected in Large Figure 3-2.
35
Photo 5-1
Example of riprap
Photo 5-2
36
Photo 5-3
Install Geoweb (examples shown in Photo 5-4, Photo 5-5, and Photo 5-6) to stabilize and reinforce the
trail (planning-level cost range: $77,000$164,000).
2.
Repair the trail and install waterbars (conceptual drawing shown in Figure 5-1) to deflect water off the
trail and reduce future erosion (planning-level cost range: $42,000$90,000).
3.
Install a side channel (reinforced ditching) along the side of the trail and resurface this area
(planning-level cost range: $79,000$170,000).
37
Photo 5-4
Photo 5-5
Photo 5-6
38
Figure 5-1
and cost of these options are highly dependent on specific site characteristics, desired aesthetics, and
project limits (e.g., Cherokee Heights Boulevard). Planning-level construction costs (not including
engineering and design) can range from several hundred thousand to several million dollars. Additional
testing and analyses, as described in Section 5.0 of Appendix C, should be considered during final design
if mechanical steep-slope-stabilization methods are pursued.
The Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook (described in Section 2.5) is considered a high-risk area due to the
potential instability of the steep slopes on the west side of the overlook (Large Figure 3-2). We
recommend that this area be closed or the slopes below the trail be stabilized due to the potential risk of
slope failure. Another option would be to relocate the overlook further back toward Cherokee Heights
Boulevard (Highway 13) in the wider area of land between the Middle and West Clay Pits and restrict
access closer to the edge of the bluffs. While there appears to be enough stable area to relocate and
reconstruct the overlook, it is possible that the slope failures may eventually encroach. Therefore, it would
be important to continually monitor the area to track encroachment of unstable slopes. If the overlook is
relocated, we recommended that the Bruce Vento Spur of the Brickyard Access Trail also be stabilized or a
new access trail constructed.
40
If the City would prefer that this area remain open to park patrons, we recommend using mechanical
slope-stabilization optionsspecifically, grading to a stable slope. In most areas of the park, the proximity
of surrounding infrastructure (roads, buildings, trails, etc.) is relatively close to the soil slopes that require
stabilization. In these areas there may not be sufficient space to flatten the grade of the slopes without
using additional stabilization measures (e.g., grading to a stable slope in conjunction with a sheetpile
wall). The North Knob area, however, is further from the general bluff line, offering greater opportunity to
grade soils without affecting surrounding infrastructure. Grading the North Knob area to a stable slope
and providing erosion protection would likely reduce sediment loading to downstream water bodies.
Successfully stabilizing this area may also reduce the recommended restrict access areas of the park.
Restrict access to the Middle and West Clay Pit areas and the Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook (as
shown in Large Figure 5-1). A planning-level cost range for fencing this area is $84,000$180,000.
(Costs are highly dependent on the actual length and type of fencing selectedthis estimate
assumes fencing for the entire length of the restrict access area shown for the southern portion
of the Brickyard Area.) The restrict access area should be reassessed following implementation
of the following steep-slope recommendations.
2.
3.
Mechanically stabilize the section of the Bruce Vento Spur of the Brickyard Access Trail
highlighted in Large Figure 5-1.
4.
Stabilize a portion of the connector section of the Brickyard Trail using VRSS, assuming the
canopy cover is not too dense for sunlight penetration (planning-level cost range: $20,000
$50,000). This area could also be stabilized by grading to a stable slope. In the interim, remove (or
relocate) the park bench downslope of this area.
5.
Stabilize the North Knob by grading to a stable slope. Although developing this alternative and
providing a planning-level construction cost is beyond the scope of this study, the minimum cost
is expected to be several hundred thousand dollars. Evaluating and addressing seepage concerns
in this area would not to be included in this stabilization option.
6.
Additional testing and analyses, as described in Section 5.0 of Appendix C, should be considered
during final design if mechanical steep-slope-stabilization methods are pursued.
41
Figure 5-2
Figure 5-3
42
Photo 5-7
Figure 5-4
43
Photo 5-8
Photo 5-9
44
Photo 5-10
Photo 5-11
45
6.0 References
American Engineering Testing. 2010. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, Cherokee Regional
Trail Widening. St. Paul : American Engineering Testing, 2010.
American Engineering Testing, Inc. 2011. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, Cherokee
Regional Trail Widening along Cherokee Heights Boulevard. St. Paul : American Engineering Testing, 2011.
Bonestroo. 2009. Lilydale Regional Park Natural Resources Management Plan. St. Paul : Bonestroo, 2009.
Mossler, J. and Benson, S. 2006. Minnesota at a Glance: Fossil Collecting in the Twin Cities Area. St. Paul :
Minnesota Geological Survey, 2006.
Northern Technologies, Inc. 2013. Lilydale Regional Park Slope Failure Investigation. s.l. : Northern
Technologies, Inc., 2013.
The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering. 2005. AACE International Recommended
Practice No. 18R-97: Cost Estimating Classification System as Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and
Construction for the Process Industries. 2005.
US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service. 2007. Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook.
s.l. : US Department of Agriculture, 2007.
46
/DUJHFigures
er
at
W
St
Chippewa Ave
k
k k
k
k
#
V
Ch
er
ok
ee
He
igh
ts
B
lvd
!
?
Annapolis St
Fremont Ave
Ga
rd
en
La
Hiawatha Ave
k
13
Simard St
Miria
m
Lo
n
St
Winston Cir
Do
wn
in
do
n
St
Diego La
Sutcliff Cir
Winston Ct
Rd
Junction La
Chippewa Ave
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.2, 2014-12-24 10:15 File: I:\Client\SaintPaul\23621151_Lilydale_Reg_Park\Maps\Reports\Report\StudyArea.mxd User: mjw
!
<
Br
om
pt
on
Kir ch
ner A
ve
Pl
k
k
!
<
Waterfall
Seep
Bruce Vento Scenic
Overlook
Railroad
Study Limits
Undeveloped Footpath
Wetland
Brickyard Trail
Fossil Bed
#
V
Echo Cave
10 ft Contour1
!
?
Brick Oven
Ravine/Stream Channel
Included in Study
Paved Trail
0
150
Feet
300
STUDY AREA
Brickyard Area of
Lilydale Regional Park
St. Paul, Minnesota
FIGURE 1-1
er
at
W
St
k
Brickyard Trail
Lower Falls
North Knob
North Ravine
Old Scarp
k
k
#
V
Fossil Site 2
Fossil Site 1
!
?
Annapolis St
Fremont Avenue Culvert
Sinkhole
He
igh
ts
B
lvd
Fremont Ave
Ch
er
ok
ee
Fossil Site 3
k
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-01-29 09:38 File: I:\Client\SaintPaul\23621151_Lilydale_Reg_Park\Maps\Reports\Report\StudyAreaFeatures.mxd User: sms
Ga
rd
en
La
!
<
Av
at
ha
Hi
aw
Fossil Site 4
13
Si
ma
rd
S
Miria
m St
ir
Sutcliff C
k
k
Waterfall
Seep
Culvert Crossing
Ravine/Stream Channel
Included in Study
Railroad
Study Limits
Undeveloped Footpath
Wetland
Brickyard Trail
Fossil Bed
!
<
#
V
Echo Cave
!
?
Brick Oven
Paved Trail
10 ft Contour 1
I
0
100
200
Feet
FIGURE 1-2
St
Ch
er
ok
ee
He
igh
ts
B
lvd
er
at
W
Annapolis St
Fremont Ave
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.2, 2015-01-08 09:01 File: I:\Client\SaintPaul\23621151_Lilydale_Reg_Park\Maps\Reports\Report\PercentSlope.mxd User: mjw
Ga
rd
en
Si
ma
rd
St
Hi
aw
at
ha
Av
13
La
Miria
m
St
ir
Sutcliff C
15 - 25%
90 - 110%
25 - 45%
110 - 150%
45 - 65%
150 - 200%
65 - 75%
>200%
75 - 90%
I
0
100
Feet
200
CHANGE IN SLOPE
(PERCENT RISE)
Brickyard Area of
Lilydale Regional Park
St. Paul, Minnesota
FIGURE 1-3
er
at
W
St
Photo 2-9
Photo 2-20
Photos 2-5
Photo 2-19
Photo 2-11
Photo 2-10
Photo 2-3
#
V
!
?
Photo 2-2
Ch
er
ok
ee
He
igh
ts
B
lvd
Annapolis St
Photo 2-27
Photos 2-23 and 2-25
Photos 2-22 and 2-24
Fremont Ave
Photos 2-21
k
Ga
rd
en
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.2, 2015-01-19 15:35 File: I:\Client\SaintPaul\23621151_Lilydale_Reg_Park\Maps\Reports\Report\SiteObservationKey.mxd User: mjw
Photo 2-16
Photo 2-13
Photo 2-17
La
Photo 2-18
Photo 2-26
Photo 2-1
Hi
aw
at
ha
Av
Photo 2-28
!
<
13
Si
ma
rd
St
Photo 2-12
Miria
m
k
k
!
<
Waterfall
Seep
Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook
#
V
Echo Cave
!
?
Brick Oven
Paved Trail
10 ft Contour1
Sutcliff C
ir
Ravine/Stream Channel
Included in Study
Wetland
Study Limits
Clay Pit Wall
Fossil Bed
100
200
St
Feet
FIGURE 2-1
er
at
W
St
No
rt h
En
SB-2-14
Chippewa Ave
"
)
k
Wa
ter
k
f al l
k
k
"
)
NTI Boring SB #1
#
V
Che
!
?
STP-B-2
"
)
rok
ee
H ei
ght
"
)
Annapolis St
sR
av i
ne
STP-B-1
Fremont Ave
k
k Mid
SB-3-14
Lo
n
k
k
!
<
Waterfall
Seep
Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook
#
V
Echo Cave
!
?
Brick Oven
"
)
Soil Boring
do
n
13
l ay
Pi
t
Sutcliff C
Miria
m
ir
St
St
Winston Ct
Chippewa Ave
Winston Cir
Do
wn
in
Pi
Hiawatha Ave
Simard St
!
<
tC
ay
La
Diego La
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.2, 2015-01-08 10:34 File: I:\Client\SaintPaul\23621151_Lilydale_Reg_Park\Maps\Reports\Report\SoilBorings.mxd User: mjw
"
)
dl
e
Cl
W
es
Ga
rd
en
Rd
Railroad
Study Limits
Geotechnical Modeling
Cross-Section
Undeveloped Footpath
Brickyard Trail
Brickyard Access Trail
Paved Trail
Ravine/Stream Channel
Included in Study
Wetland
Fossil Bed
0
125
Feet
250
St
er
at
W
Bricky
ardT rail Culve rt
Lowe r Nort
hSt
re am Channe l
Nort
hRavine Falls
Bricky
ardT rail Lowe r Se c
t
ion
Bricky
ardT rail
Lowe r Falls
Nort
hRavine
OldScarp
Nort
hKnob
#
V
Bricky
ardT rail Brs
ic
kB
y
a
rd
ra
ile n
Fos
il/
ric
k TO
v
Se ct
ion
Nort
hChe rok e e He ight
sCulve rt
Nort
hwe stSlope Failure
EastClayPit
Falls
Che rok e e He ight
s
Ravine
Fossil Sit
e 2
Fossil Sit
e 1
!
?
AnnapolisSt
Sink hole
Fre m ontAve
Fre m ont
Ave nue Culve rt
ee
He
igh
t
sB
lvd
Bricky
ardT rail Conne ct
or Se c
t
ion
Ch
er
ok
Fossil Sit
e 3
Gea
Bricky
ardAcc
s
sT rail rd
en
Bluff Se ct
ion
La
Middle ClayPit
13
Hi
aw
at
ha
Av
e
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-01-29 09:41 File: I:\Client\SaintPaul\23621151_Lilydale_Reg_Park\Maps\Reports\Report\PotentialForSlopeFailure.mxd User: sms
T he rat
ingsys
t
e m us
e dhe re isspe cifict
ot
hisproje c
tandisnotbase d
on indust
ryst
andards.
Fossil Sit
e 4
!
<
His
t
oryof pre v
iouslarge volum e slide s
Si
ma
rd
St
Bricky
ardAcce ssT rail Bruce Ve nt
o Spur
Lik e lihoodfor le ss
e r volum e circ
ularfailure or surficial t
ranslat
ionalfailure
Miria
lands
lide s
m St
His
t
oryof pre v
iousle ss
e rvolum e slide s
cliff Cir
Sut
We stClayPit
Ge ne rallyflat
t
e r grade sandm inim al lik e lihoodfor lands
lide s
No appare nthist
oryor e vide nce of landslide s
Are ast
hatwe re notobse rv
e dduringt
he MayandJuly2014sit
e visit
sbut
ge ne rallyhave sim ilar c
haract
e rist
ic
st
o ot
he r lowris
k are aswit
hin t
he s
t
udy
are a
Not
e t
hatno are aof t
he park wasc
onside re d
norisk
,ast
he unc
e rt
aint
yof
we at
he r,soil t
y
pe ,st
re ngt
h,andst
rat
igraphy
,andhum an ac
t
ivit
yalwayspose
s
om e risk due t
o une x pe ct
e dm ove m e ntof soils.
k
k
!
<
Wat
e rfall
Se e p
Bruce Ve nt
o Sce nic
Ove rlook
#
V
Ec
ho Cav
e
!
?
Brick Ove n
Bricky
ardT rail Se ct
ion
Bre ak Point
s
10ftc
ont
oursde rive dfrom 201
1DNR LiDAR.
Culv
e rtCrossing
Railroad
10ftCont
our 1
Unde ve lope dFoot
pat
h
BrickyardT rail
Ravine /
St
re am Channe l
I
nclude din St
udy
ClayPitWall
St
udyLim it
s
Fossil Be d
Pot
e nt
ial for Slope Failure
(
or Slope Failure Risk)
High
Me dium
Low
100
Feet
200
W Sidney St
St
Chippewa Ave
W Curtice St
A: North Cherokee
Heights Culvert
k
k k
Waterfall
<
!
Seep
Culvert Crossing
Storm Sewer Pipes
Ravine/Stream Channel Included
in Study
Subwatershed Divides
Major Watersheds
W Winona St
Cherokee Heights
Cherokee Ravine
k
k
Cherokee Ravine 2
ts
B
igh
He
ee
ok
Ch
er
Fremont
S Smith Ave
W Wyoming St
S Delaware Ave
lvd
S Ottawa Ave
er
at
W
k
k
Fremont Ravine
Fremont Ravine 2
Fremont Ravine 3
Trail
Annapolis St
Ga
rd
en
La
Hiawatha Ave
Dewerff St
Smith Ave
d
R
St
Winston Ct
od
d
I
0
150
300
Feet
W Be
rnard
St
STORMWATER MODELING
Brickyard Area of
Lilydale Regional Park
St. Paul, Minnesota
Do
wn
in
Ottawa Ave
Miria
m St
Sutcliff Cir
149
Cherokee Ave
<
!
Chippewa Ave
Simard St
Delaware Ave
13
Manomin Ave
Mina St
Diego La
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-01-29 09:42 File: I:\Client\SaintPaul\23621151_Lilydale_Reg_Park\Maps\Reports\Report\StormwaterModelLandscape.mxd User: sms
Fremont Ave
FIGURE 4-1
er
at
W
St
k
Brickyard Trail
Lower Falls
North Ravine
North Knob
Old Scarp
#
V
Fossil Site 2
Fossil Site 1
!
?
Annapolis St
Fremont Avenue Culvert
Sinkhole
He
igh
ts
B
lvd
Fremont Ave
Ch
er
ok
ee
Fossil Site 3
k
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-01-29 09:43 File: I:\Client\SaintPaul\23621151_Lilydale_Reg_Park\Maps\Reports\Report\Recommendations.mxd User: sms
Ga
Brickyard Access Trail - rden
La
Bluff Section
k
Middle Clay Pit
Av
at
ha
Si
ma
rd
S
!
<
Hi
aw
Fossil Site 4
13
Miria
m St
ir
Sutcliff C
k
k
!
<
Waterfall
Seep
Bruce Vento Scenic
Overlook
#
V
Echo Cave
!
?
Brick Oven
Ravine/Stream Channel
Included in Study
Recommendations
Cherokee Heights
Project
Inspect for Erosion
Replace Culvert
Stabilize Ravine
Stabilize Slope
Stabilize Trail
Restrict Access
Fossil Bed Proposed to
Remain Open
Fossil Bed Proposed to
Close
Wetland
Clay Pit Wall
Study Limits
I
100
Feet
200
RECOMMENDATIONS
Brickyard Area of
Lilydale Regional Park
St. Paul, Minnesota
FIGURE 5-1
Appendix A
Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management
Alternatives
Prepared for
City of St. Paul Department of Parks and Recreation
January 28, 2015
Appendix A
Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management Alternatives
January 28, 2015
List of Tables
Table A-1
List of Photos
Photo A-1
Photo A-2
Photo A-3
Photo A-4
Photo A-5
Photo A-6
Photo A-7
Photo A-8
Photo A-9
Photo A-10
List of Figures
Figure A-1
Figure A-2
Geoweb ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure A-3
Figure A-4
Figure A-5
Boulder riffle....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure A-6
i
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management Alternatives
Table A-1
Option #
6
7
Pros
Cons
Relative
Cost
Ideal Sites
Riprap channel
and toe
protection
(Photo A-1and
Figure A-1)
Relatively easy
installation
Not dependent on
sun/plants
Flexiblecan adapt
to disturbance
Ravine or
channel edges in
shady areas
Geoweb
(Photo A-2,
Photo A-3,
Photo A-4, and
Figure A-2)
Relatively easy
installation
Allows plant growth
(or can be filled with
rock)
Provides greater
stability than turf
reinforcement mat
Ravine or
channel edges in
shady areas
Turf
reinforcement
mat
(Photo A-5 and
Figure A-3)
Relatively easy
installation
Allows plant growth
Usually temporary
(5-year life)
Less effective for
channelized flow
Subject to undermining
Sunlight needed for
plant growth
Erosion
protection on
slopes while
vegetation
becomes
established
Vegetated
reinforced soil
slopes
(Photo A-6,
Photo A-7,
Photo A-8, and
Figure A-4)
Stabilizes steep
slopes using natural
materials
Aesthetics
Requires sunlight to
support plant growth
More difficult to install
Higher cost
$$
Stabilization of
steep slopes
with good sun
exposure; wellsuited to trail
edges
Boulder riffle
(Photo A-9 and
Figure A-5)
Provides grade
control within
ravines or channels
Not dependent on
sun/plants
Natural materials
$$
Suited to ravines
or channels that
are subject to
downcutting
Rock steps
(Figure A-6)
Higher cost
Often warrants railing to
prevent side trails from
forming
$$
Suited to very
steep trails that
are subject to
erosion
Sheetpile wall
(Photo A-10)
Long-lasting
Largely subsurface
and hidden
Low-maintenance
High cost
Subject to exposure
(concrete cap is an
option)
$$$
Stabilization of
steep hillslopes
adjacent to
trails or other
public areas
1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management Alternatives
Photo A-1
Example of riprap
Photo A-2
2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management Alternatives
Photo A-3
Photo A-4
Photo A-5
3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management Alternatives
Photo A-6
Photo A-7
4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management Alternatives
Photo A-8
Photo A-9
5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management Alternatives
Photo A-10
6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Ravine Stabilization and Stormwater Management Alternatives
SPEC #: __ __ __
Figure A-1
Page 7
SPEC #: __ __ __
Figure A-2
Page 8
WATER FLO
WATER FLO
SPEC #: 32 92 10
Figure A-3
Page 9
SPEC #: 02 90 00
Figure A-4
Page 10
SPEC #: __ __ __
Figure A-5
Page 11
SPEC #: __ __ __
Figure A-6
Page 12
Appendix B
Steep-Slope Stabilization Options
Prepared for
City of St. Paul Department of Parks and Recreation
January 28, 2015
Appendix B
Steep-Slope Stabilization Options
January 28, 2015
Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
List of Tables
Table B-1
List of Figures
Figure B-1
Figure B-2
Figure B-3
List of Photos
Photo B-1
Photo B-2
i
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix B - Steep Slope Stabilization Options
Table B-1
Option
Type
Mechanical
3&4
Option Description
Relative
Cost Range
Pros
Cons
Grading to stable
slope (Figure D-1)
Simple approach to
grade to stable slope
Moderate cost, locally
available equipment
$$$
Mechanical
Slurry trench or
seepage cut-off wall
$$$$
Mechanical
Very costly
Requires specialized
equipment
Removal of some to
most trees
$$$$$
1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix B - Steep Slope Stabilization Options
Figure B-1
2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix B - Steep Slope Stabilization Options
Photo B-1
3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix B - Steep Slope Stabilization Options
Figure B-2
4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix B - Steep Slope Stabilization Options
Figure B-3
5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix B - Steep Slope Stabilization Options
Photo B-2
6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix B - Steep Slope Stabilization Options
Contents
1.0
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Site Geology...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.1.1
Borings ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2
2.3
Site Inspections................................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.0
Investigation Results........................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1
Stratigraphy....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.5.1
3.5
Permeability ....................................................................................................................................................................12
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
3.5.1
4.0
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
Soil Stratigraphy.......................................................................................................................................................14
4.1.3
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
Rainfall .........................................................................................................................................................................16
4.3
4.3.1
Embankment-Stability Analysis..........................................................................................................................16
4.3.2
4.3.2.1
4.3.2.2
4.3.2.3
Suction ...............................................................................................................................................................18
4.3.2.4
4.3.2.5
4.3.2.6
4.3.2.7
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.5
5.0
5.1
5.1.1
Groundwater .............................................................................................................................................................25
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................................................................26
6.0
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................................27
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
ii
6.2
7.0
List of Tables
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Summary of undrained soil strength of fine-grained soils from laboratory testing ............. 11
Table 3-5
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Summary of stability results for drained friction angle (phi) only ................................................ 18
Table 4-3
Summary of stability results for drained friction angle with suction ........................................... 19
Table 4-4
Summary of stability results for infiltration of 3.5 inches of water in 24 hours ...................... 21
Table 4-5
Table 4-6
Summary of stability results for ponding upstream of Cherokee Heights Ravine ................. 22
Table 4-7
List of Attachments
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
iii
Certifications
I hereby certify that this geotechnical report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Date
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
iv
1.0 Introduction
The focus of this geotechnical evaluation was the Brickyard Area of Lilydale Regional Park. Many historical
and recreational amenities are located within the Brickyard Area, including the Brickyard Trail that extends
from the park access at West Water Street near the Mississippi River to the top of the bluff, a scenic
overlook (Bruce Vento Scenic Overlook), the historic clay mining quarries (i.e., the East, Middle, and West
Clay Pits), several waterfalls, ruins of a historic brick oven and other structures, and four fossil beds.
Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) was contracted to perform site observations, soil borings, laboratory testing,
geotechnical modeling, and analysis to evaluate potential slope-stability issues for key features in the
Brickyard Area of the park. The results of the geotechnical evaluations are provided here and have been
used as the basis for recommendations provided to the City in the concurrent report: Brickyard Area of
Lilydale Regional ParkStormwater Management and Slope-Stability Study (Main Report), also prepared
by Barr.
1.1
Lilydale Regional Park is located on bluffs along the south side of the Mississippi River in St. Paul,
Minnesota. State Highway 13 and Cherokee Heights Boulevard form the park boundary near the top of
the bluff. Cherokee Heights Park is located across Cherokee Heights Boulevard, as shown on Large
Figures 1-1 and 1-2 of the Main Report.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2011 LiDAR elevation data set was used to help
characterize the slopes throughout the Brickyard Area. Large Figure 1-3 of the Main Report shows the
change in slope throughout the Brickyard Area by presenting the percent rise, which increases as the
topography becomes more vertical. The portions of the Brickyard Area shown in orange and red hues on
the figure represent areas that are the steepest (most notably, the clay pit walls).
1.2
Former Facilities
The Brickyard was the site of the Twin Cities Brick Company, which was founded in 1894 and continued to
make bricks until the 1970s. The interest in brick-making boomed after a number of local villages and
cities, constructed primarily of wood, burned during catastrophic fires during the late 1800s. Workers
quarried Decorah shale on the bluff above this location and brought it down the steep hillside where it
was processed and fired into bricks (Reference (1)).
Currently, there are ruins of a brick oven at the base of the bluff, several old foundations (presumably
from quarrying equipment), and three main quarries (termed clay pits) forming a topographical (near
vertical) break between the lower park elevations and the upper portion of the park. There is one main
trail extending from the lower brick-making area to the upper bluffs, winding its way between the East
and Middle Clay Pits.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
There is also a large cave (Echo Cave) carved into the white Cambrian sandstone rock located adjacent to
the brick oven. It is assumed that this cave is a manmade structure mined for its high-silica-content
sandstone (used to make glass).
1.3
Site Geology
The bedrock in the area of Lilydale Regional Park was formed in Cambrian and Ordovician times, when
Minnesota was located in a tropical climate near the equator.
The upper bedrock in the park is the lower portion of the Galena Group. The Galena Limestone, a hard
buff-colored limestone rock, is mapped as the top bedrock unit near the park. Based on soil borings
performed for this investigation, the Galena Limestone was very thin to absent. The basal member of the
Galena Group is the Decorah Shale, a grayish-green shale rock with a high concentration of fossils
(Reference (2)) encountered below the site soils. This is the primary bedrock unit in the park and the
material that forms the walls of the formerly mined clay pits. There are a few more resistant limestone
layers within the Decorah Shale. These more resistant layers can be seen in the clay pit walls.
The Galena Group is underlain by the Platteville Limestone (a thin buff-to-gray limestone layer), followed
by the Glenwood Shale (a soft, greenish-gray shale), and then the St. Peter Sandstone, which is a nearly
pure, quartz-rich, beach-deposited sandstone (Reference (2)). At Minnehaha Falls, the Platteville
Limestone forms the resistant cap rock, protecting the underlying Glenwood Shale and St. Peter
Sandstone. This creates the escarpment and the falls (Reference (3)). St. Peter Sandstone was observed
along the Lower Brickyard Area, particularly Echo Cave.
The overlying soils were deposited when the Superior Lobe of the Wisconsinan glacial episode flowed into
the area from the Lake Superior basin, blanketing the area with sandy glacial drift (Reference (3)).
1.4
Previous Investigations
Several previous geotechnical and natural resource reports for the park were reviewed:
Northern Technologies, Inc., Lilydale Regional Park Slope Failure Investigation, August 21, 2013
(Reference (4))
American Engineering Testing, Inc., Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, Cherokee
Regional Trail Widening along Cherokee Heights Boulevard, May 11, 2011 (Reference (5))
American Engineering Testing, Inc., Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, Cherokee
Regional Trail Widening, October 4, 2010 (Reference (6))
Bonestroo, Lilydale Regional Park Natural Resources Management Plan, May 2009 (Reference (7))
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
Field Work
Barrs geotechnical investigation consisted of hollow-stem auger (HSA) borings with standard penetration
testing (SPT) and diamond-bit rock coring at several locations along the top of the bluff. This
supplemented the soil boring previously done by NTI at the top of the bluff.
Large Figure 3-1 of the Main Report shows the boring locations. Boring location coordinates and
elevations were surveyed by Barr for the project.
2.1.1
Borings
A total of five borings were completed (one as part of the previous NTI study, four by Barr). The borings
were located as shown on Large Figure 3-1 of the Main Report and results are summarized in
Attachment A. A sixth boring was planned by Barr, but a safe path to the location was not available
following June 2014 rains and subsequent slope failures.
Soil borings were drilled using rotary-type drill rigs and advanced using hollow-stem auger techniques
until bedrock was encountered. After bedrock was reached, diamond-bit rock coring was done for two
borings to a termination depth of approximately 100 to 104 feet below existing grade. Two other Barr
borings were completed as part of the adjacent Cherokee Heights Culvert Analysis and Erosion Control
Feasibility Study (which did not require coring) and were terminated 50 to 71 feet below existing grade.
Costs and information from these two borings were shared with the Lower Mississippi River Watershed
Management Organization, which commissioned the Cherokee Heights study.
Soil samples in the hollow-stem auger portion of the borings were obtained by split-barrel sampling
procedures in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1586,
Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. Shelby
tube samples were also obtained for laboratory testing. The bedrock was cored with a double tube-type
barrel using wireline coring methods. The soil borings were completed by NTI, American Engineering and
Testing (AET), and Glacial Ridge Drilling.
The boring log information includes materials encountered, penetration resistances, test results, and
pertinent field observations made during the drilling operations. All soil samples were classified in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The boring logs for both the NTI and Barr
investigations have been included in Attachment B of this Appendix.
Samples were transported to Soil Engineering Testing (SET) of Richfield, Minnesota, for laboratory testing.
The soil samples obtained from split-spoon sampling were sealed in plastic bags or jars in the field to
allow for easy transport and to retain natural moisture content. Shelby tube samples were sealed and
placed in a protective shipping container for transport to the laboratory. Results are included in
Attachment C.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
2.2
Laboratory Testing
The following tests were performed by SET on soil samples collected during the NTI and Barr
investigations:
Moisture content tests in accordance with ASTM D2216, Standard Test Method for Laboratory
Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass, including dry density
measurements
Grain-size analyses in accordance with ASTM D422, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size
Analysis of Soils
Percent fines (silt and clay) in accordance with ASTM D1140-00, Standard Test Method for
Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve
Atterberg limits tests in accordance with ASTM D4318, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit,
Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
Unconfined compressive strength of soil in accordance with ASTM D2166, Standard Test Method
for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil
Triaxial compressive strength in accordance with ASTM D2850-03a, Standard Test Method for
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils
Friction angle of soil determinations in accordance with ASTM D3080, Standard Test Method for
Direct Shear Test of Soils under Consolidated Drained Conditions
Unconfined compressive strength of soil in accordance with ASTM D7012, Standard Test
Methods for Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens under
Varying States of Stress and Temperature
Unit weight tests in accordance with ASTM D7263 Standard Test Method for Laboratory
Determination of Density (Unit Weight) of Soil Specimens
Falling head permeability testing on clay to clayey sand samples in accordance with ASTM D5084, Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous
Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
Visual soil classification in accordance with ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)
Fully softened strength in accordance with ASTM D6467, Standard Test Method for Torsional
Ring Shear Test to Determine Drained Residual Strength of Cohesive Soils
Laboratory test results are provided in Attachment C and summarized in Table 3-2.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
3.1
Stratigraphy
The stratigraphy of the site generally consists of variable thicknesses of primarily sandy, glacially derived
soils overlying primarily shalefollowed by sandstone bedrock, as described in Section 1.3. Occasional
clay seams and interbedded limestone layers were also encountered, as seen in the photographs of the
clay pit walls.
Although additional borings and investigation would aid in developing a more detailed stratigraphy, the
sections of this Appendix provide a generalized summary of the soils found in site borings, beginning at
the surface and generally proceeding downward.
3.1.1
Surficial Topsoil
Topsoil was found in each of the borings, extending to depths of about 12 inches below ground surface.
3.1.2
In all of the borings the upper soils generally comprised silty sand to clayey sand soils extending to the
top of the shale bedrock at depths ranging from 45.5 to 82 feet below ground surface.
Standard penetration test (SPT) N values in the silty to clayey sand soils ranged from 14 to 67, with a
typical range of 15 to 25 blows per foot. In boring SB-3-14 there was an SPT N value of 1 blow per foot at
a depth of 52 feet. This was a locally saturated soil layer. The SPT N values indicate most of the surficial
materials are in a medium-dense to dense condition.
Moisture contents of the upper silty to clayey sand soils ranged from about 6.3 to 13.7 percent. Dry unit
weights ranged from 104.7 to 130.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). In situ (moist) unit weights calculated
from the dry density test results and corresponding moisture contents ranged from about 119.0 to 143.1
pcf. Grain-size tests indicated the upper clayey sand soils had 30.8 to 38.5 percent fines (silt and clay).
Friction angles derived from laboratory direct shear testing ranged from 31.3 to 32.7 degrees for the silty
sand soils and from 33.2 to 33.4 for the clayey sand soils.
3.1.3
Some of the glacially derived soils were also classified as brown-to-gray, very lean clay soils or clayey silt
soils interbedded with the upper silty to clayey sand soils.
SPT N values for the surficial lean clay to clayey silt materials had a range of 3 to 71 blows per foot, with
typical values ranging from 8 to 35.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
The moisture content of the lean clay/silt soils ranged from about 5.2 to 26.7 percent, with a typical range
of 12 to 25 percent. Dry unit weights ranged from 98.1 to 127.4 pcf. In situ (moist) unit weights calculated
from the dry density test results and corresponding moisture contents ranged from about 122.9 to 142
pcf.
Atterberg limit test results on the clay and silt soils showed liquid limits ranging from about 22 to 43.5
percent, plastic limits ranging from about 10 to 20 percent, and a plasticity index ranging from about 4.6
to 29.5 percent. According to the USCS classification system (Reference (8)) these soils plot as CL (lean
clay soils) or CL-ML (clayey silt soils).
Laboratory unconfined compressive strength and unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial test results
ranged from 0.65 (shallow) to 5.33 tons per square foot (tsf), with most of the values ranging from about 1
to 2.2 tsf. Unconfined compressive strengths from field pocket penetrometer testing generally ranged
from 0.5 to 2.5 tsf, with typical values ranging from 1 to 2.75 tsf. The range of unconfined compressive
strengths between the laboratory and pocket penetrometer testing agreed fairly well.
3.1.4
Intermittent layers of poorly graded (lower fines content) sand soils were found interbedded with the
upper silty to clayey sand soils. Most of these layers were relatively thin (on the order of a few feet thick or
less).
SPT N values in the cleaner sand soils ranged from 10 to 49, with a typical range of 15 to 34 blows per
foot. The SPT N values indicate that most of the surficial materials are in a medium-dense to dense
condition, similar to the silty to clayey sand soils.
Moisture in the sand soils with lower fines content ranged from about 1.3 to 16.6 percent. Dry unit
weights ranged from 97.8 to 118.3 pcf. In situ (moist) unit weights calculated from the dry density test
results and corresponding moisture contents ranged from about 102.3 to 132.7 pcf. Grain-size tests
indicated the upper silty sand soils had 8.2 to 22.5 percent fines (silt and clay).
Friction angles derived from laboratory direct shear testing ranged from 28.5 to 33.7 degrees.
3.1.5
Shale Bedrock
Shale bedrock was encountered in all of the borings completed by Barr below the glacial soils at depths
ranging from 45.5 to 82 feet below grade. Shale bedrock was also encountered at a depth of 60 feet in
the NTI boring. The shale bedrock was generally field-classified as greenish-gray, thinly bedded/laminated
softer shale with limestone interbeds. Bedding planes observed in the cores appeared to be roughly
horizontal. A limestone layer capping the shale was encountered at only one location (SB-2-14) drilled
adjacent to the picnic area parking lot. There was no limestone cap at the top of the shale bedrock at the
other boring locations.
Diamond-bit rock coring was done at the two boring locations near the edge of the bluff to better
evaluate the shale; recovery percent and rock quality designation (RQD) were recorded in the field. The
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
samples were placed in boxes specifically designed to store rock cores and sent to the laboratory for
further analysis. There were a few more weathered/clayey layers encountered during drilling, but most of
the shale was recovered as intact rock.
Percent recover for the rock cores generally ranged from about 58 to 100 percent. RQD values ranged
from 33 to 100 percent, with typical values of 60 to 85 percent. There were a few more clayey layers
encountered during drilling, but even some of these remained intact in the core barrel.
Standard penetration test (SPT) N values in the shale for borings STP B-1 and STP B-2, where rock coring
was not performed, ranged from 101 blows per foot to 100 blows for only 2 to 3 inches of split-spoon
penetration (considered split-spoon refusal).
Moisture contents of the shale ranged from about 6.5 to 19 percent. Dry unit weights ranged from about
119 to 140 pcf. In situ (moist) unit weights calculated from the dry density and corresponding moisture
content test results ranged from about 135 to 149 pcf.
One sample of the thin limestone layers was also tested. This had a moisture content of 2.1 percent, a dry
density of 156.8 pcf, and a moist density of 160 pcf.
Atterberg limit test results for a zone of the more weathered/clayey shale showed a liquid limit of 54
percent, a plastic limit of 21.8 percent, and a plasticity index of 32.2 percent. According to the USCS
classification system (Reference (8)), these materials plot near the transition between CH (fat clay) and CL
(lean clay).
Laboratory unconfined compressive strength test results on the shale ranged from 4.9 tsf to 21.8 tsf. The
lower end of this range is representative of the more weathered/clayey shale layers (and a strength value
similar to very stiff soils). The upper end of the range is more representative of intact soft rock.
One test was also performed on a sample of the limestone interbed layers. Test results indicated an
unconfined compressive strength of 210.6 pounds per square foot (psf), which corresponds to strong
rock.
3.2
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was encountered in all of the soil borings directly above the top of the bedrock. In borings
performed near the East and Middle Clay Pits, there were several upper soil layers that were saturated.
However, there were soils below these layers that did not exhibit elevated moisture content; thus, the
upper readings recorded during drilling indicated perched water, likely flowing through more permeable
soils, as opposed to a solid water table down to bedrock.
Seepage was observed weeping from many of the site slopes at the soil/bedrock interface, but not usually
seen higher in the slopes. Therefore, the groundwater was assumed to be generally located at the
soil/bedrock interface at most times of the year. Seepage was specifically noted near the top of the
bedrock in the Middle Clay Pit and the rock face in the North Ravine near the North Knob.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
Groundwater levels recorded during and upon completion of drilling and the depth to bedrock are
provided in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Depth While
Drilling (feet)
SB1
NTI
58
Note 1
60
SB2-14
Barr
65
Note 1
68
Note 1
81.5
Boring ID
Depth upon
Completion (feet)
Depth to
Bedrock
4445
SB-3-14
Barr
5053
7081.5
STP B-1
Barr*
STP B-2
Barr*
21.538
63.567
Not encountered
above cave depth
67
Intermittent,
1545.5 feet
Not encountered
above cave depth
45.5
(weathered)
50 (intact)
* Borings performed for the adjacent Cherokee Heights Culvert Analysis and Erosion Control Feasibility Study commissioned by the
Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization.
Note 1Due to the addition of drilling fluid, groundwater readings could not be obtained upon completion of drilling.
At three boring locations drilling fluid was added to the boreholes to facilitate rock coring. The addition of
this fluid prevented an accurate measurement of groundwater levels when drilling was completed.
At the face of the bluff, water seepage is typically seen very close to the bedrock interface (wet areas,
dripping soils, ice formations observed in pictures). Groundwater seepage over bedrock was seen in the
North Ravine near the North Knob and in the Middle Clay Pit. Water leaving the Cherokee Heights Ravine
and forming the East Clay Pit Falls also flows directly on bedrock.
Groundwater levels at the site will tend to vary over time in response to rainfall events, seasonal
fluctuations, and local conditions. Water levels will likely be higher during times of more frequent or
intense precipitation. Additional groundwater monitoring during different times of the year or following
heavy precipitation events would need to be performed to gain a better understanding of the
groundwater levels at the site.
3.3
Moisture content, Atterberg limit, grain-size analysis, and unit-weight testing were performed on multiple
soil samples from the investigation locations. NTI performed testing on soil samples collected as part of
their investigation. Testing of soil samples for this investigation was performed by SET. The laboratory test
results are summarized in Table C-1 and provided in Attachment C.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
The results of the laboratory testing were used to determine the soil parameters for seepage modeling,
stability modeling, and the analysis described in the following sections of this Appendix.
3.4
The soil parameters used for seepage and stability modeling were determined by laboratory testing.
Laboratory testing is provided in Attachment C. The following sections of this Appendix discuss the soil
strengths in terms of unit weight, friction angle (for granular soils), rock strength, and unsaturated soil
suction values.
3.4.1
A total of 24 dry density tests were performed on split-spoon samples, Shelby tube samples, and rock
cores. Moist (in situ) unit weights were calculated from the dry density test results and the corresponding
moisture contents. Generally, the cleaner, poorly graded sand had the lowest unit weights, followed by
the silty to clayey sands and lean clays; shale and limestone bedrock had higher unit weights. Unit weight
values for each predominant soil type are provided in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2
Soil Type
Approximate
Range of Dry Unit
Weights
(pcf)
Approximate
Range of Moist
Unit Weights
(pcf)
98118
102132.5
109
119
Clayey/Silty sand
105130.5
119143
137
147
Lean clay
98127.5
123142
133
143
Shale (weathered)
119140
135149
130
140
* Low average unit weight values were selected for slope-stability modeling.
** Saturated unit weights for modeling were selected based on laboratory moisture contents, moist unit weights, and engineering
judgment
The overall average in situ (moist) unit weight result for all of the project tests is approximately 137.7 pcf.
Test results for the individual soil strata are discussed in Section 3.1. Unit weight test and lab test results
are provided in Attachment C.
3.4.2
Direct shear testing was performed in the laboratory on five samples collected by Barr to evaluate the
friction angle of these materials for foundation design. One direct shear test on the silty sand soils was
also performed by NTI, showing a friction angle of 35.2 degrees. The friction angle values for each soil
type are provided in Table 3-3.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
10
Table 3-3
Soil Type
Poorly graded (clean) sand
Clayey/Silty sand
Lean clay
Range of Measured or
Calculated Friction Angle
Values
Lab Testing
(degrees)
28.533.7
33.235.2
31.3
Selected Design
Friction Angle
Parameter
(degrees)
29
33
30
The design values recommended for each soil type are provided in Table 3-3.
3.4.3
The undrained shear strength values were derived from unconfined compressive strength testing on
Shelby tube samples from the borings and rock cores. Undrained shear strength values are considered to
be half of the unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils. For the soil profile at the site, only the
highly weathered shale can be considered a cohesive soil.
The undrained shear strengths for the clay soil types are provided in Table 3-4:
Table 3-4
Soil Type
Weathered Shale
Range of Unconfined
Compressive Strengths
Range of Undrained
Shear Strengths
Recommended
Undrained Shear
Strength Design
Value
4,900 psf
* Undrained shear strengths are considered to be half of the laboratory unconfined compressive strength of soils
The recommended design value is the minimum test result value for the weathered shale, and is on the
order of strength for a very stiff cohesive soil.
11
Moisture content and water tension distribution is linear in the sample. The specimen is wettest at
the bottom and driest at the top.
2.
3.
Water tension and specimen weight changes are linear between calculation/evaluation points.
The measured initial density and saturated volumetric water content for the two samples tested were
verified, with index testing completed by an independent laboratory.
3.5
Permeability
Saturated hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on intact Shelby tube samples to evaluate the
permeability of the in situ soils. The samples were extruded into the testing apparatus in in-situ condition
(i.e., they were not remolded for testing). The hydraulic conductivity of each material is provided in Table
3-5.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
12
Table 3-5
Soil Type
Saturated
Permeability Values
from Lab Testing
(cm/sec)
-4
5.2x10
-6
6.6x10
-7
9.2x10
1.6x10
Clayey/Silty sand
2.0x10
Lean clay
2.8x10
Shale
3.5.1
Design Saturated
Permeability Values
(ft/sec)
-6
-8
-9
-10
--
3.3x10
Slaking potential is a measure of the soils ability to soften with prolonged wetting/drying cycles. Slaking
is a common slope-stability problem with shale bedrock, particularly in clayey shales. Slaking can be
significant (particularly in arid to semi-arid regions) and can jeopardize the stability of rock canyon walls
(Reference (9)).
Based on a review of the project site, there appears to be some slaking along the faces of the clay pit
walls, evidenced by the talus piles of weathered rock materials along the toe of the steep slopes. However,
the rate of slaking does not appear sufficient to cause routine, large-scale slides.
The effects of slaking or just softening of the shale materials into weaker clays may be more prevalent
where the waterfalls provide a constant source of moisture to the rock faces. Therefore, caution should be
used immediately below the sites waterfalls, and plunge pools should be protected to minimize
undercutting at the base of the falls.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
13
4.1
Design Parameters
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
14
Table 4-1
Material Description
Material Property
Saturated permeability
5.2x10 ft/sec
29 degrees
Cohesion
0 psf
Lean clay
109 pcf
119 pcf
Saturated permeability
6.6x10 ft/sec
33 degrees
-8
Cohesion
0 psf
137 pcf
147 pcf
Saturated permeability
9.2x10 ft/sec
30 degrees
-9
Cohesion
0 psf
133 pcf
143 pcf
Saturated permeability
-10
3.3x10
ft/sec
Cohesion (inherent
strength)
4,900 psf
120 pcf
130 pcf
4.2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
15
4.2.3 Rainfall
To evaluate the effect of rainfall, Barr reviewed rainfall records between the May and July site visits when
additional slope failures were noted (Reference (10)). Based on the records reviewed, the highest rainfall
amount in a 24-hour period was 3.17 inches. Based on NOAAs Atlas 14 rainfall information
(Reference (11)), that rainfall amount was essentially the equivalent of the 5-year 24-hour storm (3.5
inches in a 24-hour period).
A transient model with rainfall applied for a period of 24 hours (in the form of a unit flux boundary
condition placed along the ground surface) was used to evaluate the effect of infiltration on slope stability
-6
(again using the previous model with soil suction). A unit flux of 3.38x10 ft/sec was applied.
Once the design rainfall is established, the amount of infiltration needs to be determined. Some portion of
the water will infiltrate the pore spaces of the soil and increase its moisture content, while the rest will run
along the ground surface (i.e., runoff). The amount of infiltration can be difficult to determine because it
depends on the moisture content of the soils at the time of the rainfall (defined by the soil-water
characteristic curve described in Section 3.4.5). Soils with very low moisture content have very low
permeability; most precipitation on this soil will run off the slopes. (This is why flash flooding occurs in
desert environments with low soil moisture). Conversely, soils with higher moisture content have a higher
permeability and allow more of the precipitation to infiltrate. Therefore, storm events of the same
magnitude and duration can produce significantly different amounts of runoff and infiltration depending
on the soils moisture content at the time of the storm.
Due to the uncertainty of the site conditions, the amount of infiltration from the 5-year 24-hour storm
event was evaluated in two ways: (1) using the soil-water characteristic curve to estimate permeability
from modeled conditions or (2) assuming that no runoff was experienced and all precipitation infiltrated
the soils.
4.3
Slope-Stability Analysis
16
considered to be unstable and would fail; slopes with a factor of safety higher than 1.0 are considered
stable (or marginally stable as the safety factor approaches or hovers close to 1.0).
Natural soil slopes which are stable or marginally stable usually have minimum calculated factors of safety
of 1.1 to 1.3. These factors of safety are representative of typical sunny day conditions, but may be
reduced or even drop below 1.0 in the presence of excess moisture from rainfall, changes in groundwater
elevations, etc. Therefore, to determine the potential for slope failure, the factor of safety should be
considered for a range of anticipated conditions. Analyses of several different sets of conditions within the
study area were performed to determine the potential for slope failure along the bluff line.
For a point of reference, Federal Energy Regulation Commission guidelines for high-hazard earth dams
require slopes with a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers levee guidelines
recommend factors of safety ranging from 1.3 to 1.5, depending on how long the slope remains in a
certain configuration (i.e., a lower factor of safety is required for temporary construction slopes than for
permanent embankments). Thus, the minimum acceptable safety factors of an engineered slope are
often greater than the minimum safety factors observed for natural slopes.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
17
Table 4-2
Analyzed Cross
Section
Type of Failure
Surface
Minimum
Factor of Safety
Figure
Minimum
Factor of
Safety
Stability (FS=1.0)
Factor of Safety
Figure
North end
Entry/Exit (circular
surface)
E-1
0.75
E-2
Waterfall (Slope 1
bluff surface)
Entry/Exit (circular
surface)
E-7
0.66
E-8
Waterfall (Slope 2
back surface)
Entry/Exit (circular
surface)
E-13
0.83
E-14
Cherokee Heights
Ravine (Slope 1
bluff surface)
Entry/Exit (circular
surface)
E-18
0.70
E-19
Cherokee Heights
Ravine (Slope 2
back surface)
Entry/Exit (circular
surface)
E-29
1.34
--
Entry/Exit (circular
surface)
E-37
0.68
E-38
Entry/Exit (circular
surface)
E-43
0.58
E-44
4.3.2.3 Suction
As previously discussed, a review of the topography at the site indicates that the angle of the slopes
exceeds the drained friction angle of the soils. If the strength of the soils was governed only by the
drained friction angles, the slopes would be unstable and fail. To allow for steep slopes to remain
standing, the soils must have additional strength beyond their angle of friction. The soil mechanism
allowing this is called soil suction. Soil suction is formed by drying or dewatering the soils, which creates a
negative pore pressure in the soils pore spaces and increases the strength of the soil matrix (or provides
an apparent cohesion in the soil in excess of its drained friction angle).
The phenomena of soil suction can be illustrated by thinking of a common sand castle at the beach. Dry
sand will only form a conical pile to a certain angle (the materials drained friction angle). However, sand
with moderate water content will allow for much steeper angles to be achieved. Then, as the castle sits in
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
18
the sun and dries, the sides of the castle become unstable and slough off. Or, as the tide comes in and the
sand at the base of the castle becomes saturated, the sides of the castle slough and collapse. By drying or
saturating the soils, the suction force is negated; the soil strengths will be governed by their friction angle
and failures will occur.
Since the suction forces are considered critical to understanding the stability of the soil slopes on the site,
Barr performed laboratory testing to evaluate the soil suction in the unsaturated portion of the clayey
sand and silty sand soils, as discussed in Section 3.4.5. Soil suction for the cleaner sands and clay soils,
which will provide a lesser amount of soil suction than the silty and clayey sand soils, was determined
using index property testing and typical soil-suction functions contained in the GeoStudio software
package.
Modeling of the existing slopes, including suction forces predicted by the physical index characteristics of
the clay soils, produces a factor of safety ranging from about 1.1 to 1.4, as summarized in Table 4-3.
However, when the soils are re-saturated the suction force is negated; the soil strengths will be reduced
and slope failures will occur.
Table 4-3
Figure
Minimum Factor
of Safety
North end
E-3
1.40
E-9
1.18
E-15
2.34
E-20
1.53
E-30
1.53
E-39
1.22
E-45
1.11
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
19
surface of the bedrock is weathered and acts more as stiff clay, making the contrast between soil and
bedrock characteristics less sharp.
Therefore, the circular failure surfaces for soils, incorporating suction forces and sunny-day factors of
safety ranging from 1.1 to 1.3, will be used for subsequent analysis. It is possible that smaller-scale block
failures may occur at the site; but, at this time, the modeling is not predicting stable slopes or failure
surfaces in agreement with Barrs site observations. If additional investigations, analyses, and modeling
produce results that better match observed conditions, block-style analysis may be considered for final
design of soil-stabilization methods.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
20
Table 4-4
Type of Failure
Surface
Figure
Figure
North end
Entry/Exit
(circular surface)
E-4
0.75
E-5
1.29
Entry/Exit
(circular surface)
E-10
0.59
E-11
0.78
Entry/Exit
(circular surface)
E-16
0.83
E-17
1.91
Entry/Exit
(circular surface)
E-21
0.70
E-22
1.11
Entry/Exit
(circular surface)
E-31
1.48
E-32
2.33
Entry/Exit
(circular surface)
E-40
0.68
E-41
0.92
Entry/Exit
(circular surface)
E-46
0.58
E-47
0.73
Modeling indicates that the stability of the slopes is not changed much using soil strengths without
suction forces, but the factors of safety are reduced below stability for the soil slopes incorporating
suction forces. This indicates that if conditions allow for infiltration of some precipitation, the strength of
the natural sand soils is reduced from loss of suction, possibly resulting in slope failures.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
21
Table 4-5
Figure
Elevation of Water
Table to Reduce
Factor of Safety to
1.0
North End
E-6
921.5
E-12
855
E-23
918
E-42
910.5
E-48
901
It is understood that options for detaining stormwater upstream of the project are being considered
within Cherokee Heights Park. Because the ravine on the other side of Cherokee Heights Boulevard,
leading into the 60-inch culvert in Cherokee Heights Ravine, is the closest option for stormwater
detention it was selected for modeling. Given that the pond will not likely be designed to hold water for
long periods of time, it was conservatively assumed that the water surface was near the pond bottom
(unless associated with a storm event).
Sunny Day
Factors of Safety
Analyzed Cross Section
Factors of Safety
No Suction
With Suction
No Suction
With Suction
0.53
0.62
0.45
0.50
1.48
2.30
1.48
2.01
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
22
4.4
4.4.1
The modeling results for selected cases are summarized in Table 4-7. As illustrated, the natural soil slopes
require suction forces to stand at their existing slope angles. Infiltration from rain events, infiltration from
ponding upstream of the slopes, or a raised phreatic surface will all reduce the effects of suction and
reduce slope stability.
Table 4-7
Sunny Day
1
Factors of Safety
With
No Suction
Suction
Factors of Safety
With
No Suction
Suction
Water Table
Elevation to
Reduce FOS to
3
1.0 (elevation
in feet)
North End
0.75
1.40
0.75
1.29
921.5
0.66
1.18
0.59
0.78
855
0.83
2.34
0.83
1.91
--
0.70
1.53
0.70
1.11
918
0.70
1.03
0.47
0.52
--
1.34
1.53
1.48
2.33
--
1.34
1.53
1.48
2.01
--
0.68
1.22
0.68
0.92
910.5
0.58
1.11
0.58
0.73
901
Factors of safety (FOS) are based on limited boring/subsurface investigations (May and June 2014) and the assumption that the
soil borings referenced in this Appendix are representative of the identified locations.
The boring in the area of the West Clay Pit was not obtained due to access issues; soil conditions in the West Clay Pit were
assumed to be similar to the Middle Clay Pit.
The secondary slope (Slope 2) for the Waterfall and Cherokee Heights Ravine cross sections were not analyzed for high
groundwater conditions. A high groundwater condition also was not evaluated as part of the ponding analysis for the
Cherokee Heights Ravine section; see Table 4-6.
4.4.2
There is diverse vegetation on the upper soil slopes of the study area and trees of various sizesfrom
saplings to mature 40-foot trees. There is also grass/weed vegetation that has formed carpet-like mats on
many of the parks slopes (see photos 12, 13, and 24 in Attachment D).
In certain scenarios, vegetation can help increase slope stability by reinforcing soils and absorbing water
that would otherwise increase moisture content. However, trees in the study area have not stabilized the
larger slides, as evidenced by the trees caught in the large 2014 landslide (see photos 4 through 7 and 14
in Attachment D). Furthermore, trees that are overhanging or near the edge of slopes may help trigger
landslides when undermined, unstable, or blown overdragging the surrounding soils down slope.
The root mats formed from the grassy/weed vegetation is effective at stabilizing the surface of the slopes,
to a depth of approximately one foot. However, as seen on many of the slopes in the West and Middle
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
23
Clay Pits, these mats of root-reinforced soils appear to reach a critical condition and result in slope
failures. In fact, it appears that the soils on the slopes may actually store materials in the root mats,
potentially making the volume of the slides slightly larger than if the soils were allowed to ravel on unvegetated slopes. Therefore, caution should be exercised below steep, vegetated, natural slopes (i.e.,
against the steep slopes of the clay pits). And, because the failure surface extends well below the root
zones that bind the soils, neither trees nor grass/weed vegetation should be considered to stabilize the
upper soil slopes.
Ultimately, some form of surface vegetation should be placed on the park slopes. Otherwise, erosion will
create large amounts of downstream sediment that is both costly and time-consuming to manage. If
slopes are regraded or existing vegetation is removed, vegetation that is suitable to park conditions and
able to minimize soil erosion is recommended. Removal of larger trees overhanging or near the edge of
the soil slopes may also be beneficial, reducing these as a trigger mechanism for slides and/or reducing
the volume of slide events.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
24
Groundwater
The only groundwater information available at the time of this report was from the saturated zones of
soils found in the soil borings. There were several layers at depths much shallower than the soil/bedrock
transition, which appeared to be saturated or nearly saturated during drilling. This was particularly true in
the soil borings for the Cherokee Heights Ravine (STP B-1 and B-2). However, this does not agree with the
observations of seepage primarily near the top of the shale at the face of the bluff. Thus, there appears to
be some perched groundwater flow. This flow is influenced by the different permeabilities of the
interlayered sand and clay soils but, eventually, combines to flow near the top of the bedrock.
In addition, a significant concentrated seep was observed flowing from the fresh scarp of the 2014 slide
during the July site visit. The source of this groundwater may be infiltration flow from the second ravine or
groundwater flow from another source.
If steep-slope mechanical stabilization is pursued, piezometer installation should be considered during
final design to increase understanding of the groundwater depths and flow. Several piezometers installed
along the cross sections, particularly the water fall and Cherokee Heights Ravine, would better identify
groundwater flow and potential sources of seepage. An understanding of groundwater levels correlated
to storm events may also be beneficial. Vibrating wire piezometers with data loggers could be used to
evaluate the change in groundwater levels over time. For borings/areas where multiple potential zones of
saturation were observed, nested piezometers at different depths should be used to evaluate different
zones for perched groundwater flow.
5.1.2
Soil Borings
The soil stratigraphy in the borings appears to alternate among clean sands, silty sands, clayey sands, and
sandy clays over the bedrock. The soils do not appear to be regularly ordered. The suction forces of the
materials, which provide strength for the slopes, are much lower in the cleaner fine sand soils.
Understanding the locations of these clean sand layers would be beneficial for evaluating and designing
potential stabilization alternatives. Therefore, it is recommended that any of the soil borings completed
for piezometer installation be logged to evaluate soil conditions.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
25
5.1.3
Laboratory Testing
Soils derived from the additional soil borings should be tested to identify additional parameters for final
analysis and design. Understanding drained strength parameters for the weathered shale soils would be
particularly beneficial. The failures predicted from the drained strengths reported by NTI do not appear to
match the observed failures.
5.1.4
Instrumentation
Understanding the location of the potential failure planes would also be beneficial if further evaluation
and final design of stabilization alternatives is pursued. To date, failure scarps (usually observed from a
distance) provide the only indication of the type and shape of failure surfaces. Installation of inclinometers
in areas of anticipated failure would better define the failure surfaces; this should be considered during
final design if steep-slope mechanical stabilization is pursued. This would allow for better back analysis
(analyzing a known failure to determine the soil and groundwater properties) and potentially determine
whether block-style failure planes may be observed.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
26
6.0 Limitations
6.1
6.1.1
This evaluation, analyses, and recommendations were developed from the information provided and
subsurface collected. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from borings
continuously with depth; therefore, strata boundaries and thicknesses must be inferred to some extent.
Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions and can be expected to vary in depth, elevation, and
thickness away from the boring locations. Although strata boundaries can be determined with continuous
sampling, the boundaries apparent at boring locations likely vary away from each boring. Specifically, due
to concern over the stability of the Brickyard Trail, soil conditions at the Middle Clay Pit were assumed to
extend to the West Clay Pit. The soil conditions at the West Clay Pit would need to be determined prior to
the final evaluation and design of any soil stabilization methods.
Variations in subsurface conditions between borings may not be revealed until additional exploration
work is completed or construction commences. Such variations could increase construction costs, and a
contingency should be provided to accommodate such variations.
6.1.2
Groundwater Variability
Groundwater measurements were made under the conditions indicated in the boring logs and interpreted
in the text of this Appendix. It should be noted that the observation periods were relatively short, and
groundwater can be expected to fluctuate in response to rainfall, snowmelt, flooding, irrigation, seasonal
freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications, and other seasonal and annual factors.
6.2
Limitations of Analysis
This Appendix is for the exclusive use of the City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation. Barr assumes no
responsibility to other parties. Our evaluation, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for
other parties or projects.
No published national standards exist for data retrieval and geotechnical evaluations. Barr has used the
methods and procedures described in this Appendix. In performing its services, Barr used the degree of
care, skill, and generally accepted engineering methods and practices ordinarily exercised under similar
circumstances and under similar budget and time constraints by reputable members of its profession
practicing in the same locality. Reasonable effort was made to characterize the project site based on the
site-specific field work; however, there is always the possibility that conditions may vary away from the
locations where testing was performed. Qualified personnel should carefully verify soil conditions during
construction. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
27
7.0 References
1. National Park Service. The Brickyards of St. Paul. National Park Service. [Online]
http://www.nps.gov/miss/planyourvisit/brickyards.htm.
2. Mossler, J. and Benson, S. Minnesota at a Glance: Fossil Collecting in the Twin Cities Area. St. Paul :
Minnesota Geological Survey, 2006.
3. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Minneahaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water
Resoruces Management Plan. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: Quality of Water, Quality of Life.
[Online] 2014. http://www.minnehahacreek.org/comprehensive-water-resources-managementplan/minnehaha-creek-watershed-district-comprehensive-water.
4. Northern Technologies Inc. Lilydale Regional Park Slope Failure Investigation. St. Paul : Northern
Technologies, Inc., 2013.
5. American Engineering Testing, Inc. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, Cherokee Regional
Trail Widening along Cherokee Heights Boulevard. St. Paul : American Engineering Testing, 2011.
6. American Engineering Testing. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, Cherokee Regional Trail
Widening. St. Paul : American Engineering Testing, 2010.
7. Bonestroo. Lilydale Regional Park Natural Resources Management Plan. St. Paul : Bonestroo, 2009.
8. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 7.01: Soil Mechanics. [book auth.] Naval Facilities Engineering
Command. Naval Facilities and Engineering Command Design Manual. Alexandria : s.n., 1986.
9. Abramson, Lee W, Lee, Thomas S., Sharma, Sunil and Boyce, Glenn M. Slope Stability and
Stabilization Methods. 2nd. New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001.
10. AccuWeather.com. AccuWeather.com for St. Paul, MN, Local Weather. AccuWeather.com. [Online]
2014. http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/st-paul-mn/55102/juneweather/348795?monyr=6/1/2014&view=table.
11. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA's National Weather Service
Hydrometerological Design Studies Center Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PFDS). NOAA's National
Weather Service Hydrometerological Design Studies Center . [Online] 2014.
http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix C - Geotechnical Evaluation\AppendixC_Lilydale Geotech Report_Final.docx
28
Attachment A
Soil Boring Summary
Attachment A
Soil Boring Summary
Turbine ID/
Test ID
SB-2-14
SB-3-14
STP-B-1
STP-B-2
Turbine Coordinates,
Soil Boring
decimal degrees
Latitude
148037.2
146215.4
147165.0
147248.1
Longitude
570885.8
569917.8
571159.7
570934.1
Testing
X
X
X
X
Attachment B
Soil Boring Logs
PAGE 1 OF 1
2" TOPSOIL
SILTY SAND - (SP), fine to medium grained, trace roots, trace
gravel, brown, moist, loose to dense
2.5
HA
1
HA
HA
2
HA
HA
3
11
HA
17
HA
4
14
HA
FINES CONTENT
(%)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
PLASTIC
LIMIT
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
LIQUID
LIMIT
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
0.0
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH
(ft)
GEOTECH BH COLUMNS - REVISED DATA TEMPLATE_7-20-12.GDT - 8/14/13 12:21 - C:\USERS\RACHELL\DESKTOP\GNIT FILES\LILYDALE SLIDE_7-10-13\LILYDALE SLIDE (H.A.).GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
CHECKED BY RMB
RECOVERY %
(RQD)
LOGGED BY RL
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
20
HA
5
HA
5.0
NOTE: Occasional shale fragments at 5 feet
SHALE - gray
HA
6
HA
7
23
PAGE 1 OF 3
6" TOPSOIL
FILL: CLAY, trace roots, brown, moist, medium
SS
1
SS
2
2-2-5-6
(7)
67
6-6-9-9
(15)
100
9-12-15
(27)
92
12-12-1215
(24)
100
12-16-18
(34)
100
9-11-9
(20)
63
5-7-9-11
(16)
83
8-10-8
(18)
63
10-9-8-11
(17)
75
8-7-7-9
(14)
HS
FILL: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH A LITTLE SILT - (SP-SM),
fine to medium grained, trace gravel, brown, dry, medium dense to
dense
5" Casing from 0 to 8 feet
4" Casing from 8 to 41 feet
10
CLAYEY SAND - (SC), fine to medium grained, trace gravel,
brown, moist, dense to very dense
SS
3
HS
SS
4
HS
SS
5
RW
SS
6
RW
15
SS
7
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH A LITTLE SILT - (SP-SM), fine
to medium grained, trace gravel, brown, moist, dense
20
RW
SS
8
RW
SS
9
RW
25
SS
10
RW
SS
11
RW
SS
12
100
5-8-10-12
(18)
RW
SS
13
RW
89
8-11-13
(24)
SS
14
92
12-18-1820
(36)
30
35
RW
(Continued Next Page)
FINES CONTENT
(%)
58
HS
PLASTIC
LIMIT
2-2-2-2
(4)
LIQUID
LIMIT
50
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
PLASTICITY
INDEX
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH
(ft)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
CHECKED BY RMB
RECOVERY %
(RQD)
LOGGED BY RTM
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
45
20-50/0"
SS
17
100
20-21-2341
(44)
SS
18
100
15-30-33
(63)
75
15-25-4060
(65)
100
15-30-50
(80)
88
25-35-3035
(65)
100
15-30-40
(70)
92
30-35-3850
(73)
50
50/4"
43
16
27
RW
RC
RW
SS
19
50
RW
SS
20
POORLY GRADED SAND - (SP), very fine grained, brown,
waterbearing, very dense
RW
SS
21
55
RW
SS
22
POORLY GRADED SAND - (SP), fine to medium grained, trace
gravel, brown, waterbearing, very dense
RW
SS
23
60
WEATHERED SHALE OCCASIONALLY INTERBEDDED WITH
LIMESTONE
30% water loss while coring
65
NX Casing was set from 0 to 61 feet and cleaned out with 2 15/16"
rock bit
NX 2 15/16" core barrel sampling from 61 to 71, and 73 to 100 feet
After sitting overnight with broken diamond bit at 71 feet, hole was
cleaned out on 6-11-13 with rock bit from 71 to 73 feet.
100% water loss and 1 broken diamond bit while coring from 66 to
71 feet
RW
SS
24
RB
RC
25
90
RC
26
80
70
RB
27
0.5 hrs to core from 73 to 78 feet.
75
(Continued Next Page)
16
FINES CONTENT
(%)
83
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
RW
SS
16
POCKET PEN.
(tsf)
12-14-16
(30)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
89
PLASTIC
LIMIT
40
SS
15
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
LIQUID
LIMIT
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
35
RECOVERY %
(RQD)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH
(ft)
PAGE 2 OF 3
52
19
33
81
80
14
RC
29
97
RC
30
73
RC
31
100
85
90
100
shale.
FINES CONTENT
(%)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
POCKET PEN.
(tsf)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
RC
28
PLASTIC
LIMIT
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
LIQUID
LIMIT
75
RECOVERY %
(RQD)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH
(ft)
PAGE 3 OF 3
Horizon
or Zone
C
1.8-2.0
4.1-4.5
6.6-7.0
9.1-9.5
11.6-12.0
14.1-14.5
16.6-17.0
19.1-19.5
21.6-22.0
Description
very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silt loam to loam; few medium distinct
strong brown (7.5YR4/6) mottles; massive to very weak thin platy
structure; friable; non-effervescent; abrupt lower boundary; faint bedding
may be indicative of sheetwash, alluvial/colluvial. NTI Sample #1.
alternating brown to dark brown (7.5YR4/4) and dark brown (7.5YR3/2)
coarse silt loams; weak thin laminar bedding; friable; non-effervescent;
unknown lower boundary; laminar beds are of the same textures but
different colors and suggest transport of materials from nearby upslope
sources, alluvial/colluvial. NTI Sample #1.
yellowish brown (10YR5/4-5/6) silt loam; few fine distinct strong brown
(7.5YR4/6) mottles; very weak traces of laminar bedding; friable; noneffervescent; unknown lower boundary; common fine rootlets; one
subangular metamorphic pebble lower boundary, alluvial/colluvial. NTI
Sample #2.
pink (7.5YR7/4 dry; brown to dark brown 7.5YR4/4 when moistened) fine
sand with few fine pebbles; single grain; loose; slight effervescence;
unknown lower boundary; one coarse angular possibly fossiliferous pebble,
fluvial. NTI Sample #3.
brown (7.5YR5/4) fine loamy sand with pebbles; single grain; weak thin
bedding; very friable to loose; strong effervescence; unknown lower
boundary; coarse pebbles are angular sandstones; fine pebbles are
subrounded metamorphics. NTI Sample #4.
alternating brown (7.5YR5/4; saturated) fine sand thin bedding and dark
brown to brown (7.5YR4/4; saturated) sandy loam medium beds; sandy
loam medium beds part to thin beds; fines sands are loose; sandy loams are
very friable; strong effervescence; unknown lower boundary; single
subrounded 1.75x1.25x1.0 red granite pebble, fluvial. NTI Sample #5.
dark brown to brown (7.5YR4/2-4/4; moist) loamy sand to sandy loam with
few pebbles; weak medium bedding; very friable; strong effervescence;
unknown lower boundary; subangular 1.0x1.25x1.0 black basalt pebble,
fluvial. NTI Sample #6.
dark yellowish brown to brown to dark brown (10YR-7.5YR4/4) loamy
sand with few pebbles; very weak thin to medium bedding; very friable;
strong effervescence; unknown lower boundary; subangular
0.75x1.0x0.5 white chert pebble; subangular 0.75x1.0x0.5 black
basalt pebble, fluvial. NTI Sample #7.
brown to dark brown (7.5YR4/4) fine loamy sand with fine to medium
pebbles; very weak medium bedding to massive; very friable to loose;
slight effervescence; unknown lower boundary; single thin medium sand
lens, fluvial. NTI Sample #8.
brown to dark brown (7.5YR4/4; saturated) fine loamy sand with medium
pebbles; very weak medium bedding to massive; very friable to loose;
Depth
(feet)
Horizon
or Zone
24.1-24.5
26.6-27.0
29.1-29.5
31.6-32.0
34.1-34.5
36.6-37.0
39.1-39.5
39.5-43.0
44.7-45.0
46.6-47.0
49.1-49.5
50.5-50.9
Description
slight effervescence; unknown lower boundary; triangular shaped
subangular 1.25x1.0x0.5 black basalt pebble, fluvial. NTI Sample #9.
dark yellowish brown to brown to dark brown (10YR-7.5YR4/4)
alternating fine sandy loam with pebbles and very fine to fine sand; very
weak bedding to massive (sandy loam) and single grain (fine sands); very
friable (loams) and loose (sands); slight effervescence; unknown lower
boundary; abrupt boundaries between intra-sample beds, fluvial. NTI
Sample #10.
brown (7.5YR5/4; saturated) silty clay loam to sandy clay loam with
medium pebbles; massive; firm; slight effervescence; unknown lower
boundary; chert and metamorphic pebbles are subrounded; sedimentary
pebbles are subangular, fluvial/alluvial. NTI Sample #11.
brown (7.5YR5/4; saturated) sandy clay loam diamicton; few very coarse
prominent gray to grayish brown (2.5Y5/0-5/2) mottles; massive; very firm;
slight effervescence; unknown lower boundary; subrounded fine to medium
pebbles with long axis dipping 45-50 degrees (fabric orientation could not
be determined from uncontrolled split-spoon sampler), till. NTI Sample
#12.
uppermost 0.25 inches are same as above except for abrupt gravelly lag
deposit to 31.7 feet at lower boundary; very thin iron oxidized sand bed
under lag deposit; 31.7-32.0 feet is strong brown to reddish yellow
(7.5YR5/4-6/8) coarse to very coarse sand with crumbling pebbles; single
grain; loose; slight effervescence; unknown lower boundary, till over lag
over fluvial. NTI Sample #13.
brownish yellow (10YR6/8) medium to coarse sand with common pebbles;
single grain; loose; slight effervescence; unknown lower boundary; pebbles
and coarse sands are well rounded to subangular, fluvial. NTI Sample #14.
brownish yellow (10YR6/8) fine to medium sand; single grain; loose; slight
effervescence; unknown lower boundary; single fine flat crumbling black
schist pebble (aerodynamic shape may explain this being the only pebble
amongst the finer sand grains), fluvial. NTI Sample #15.
yellowish brown (10YR5/4; saturated) very coarse sand to loamy sand;
common medium distinct very dark brown (10YR2/2) and reddish yellow
(7.5YR6/8) mottles; single grain; very friable to loose; slightly sticky in
localized spots; slight effervescence; unknown lower boundary; variety of
mottles indicates that a textural/hydraulic boundary may be in close
proximity, fluvial. NTI Sample #16.
drillers reported drilling through granite boulder, possible lag deposit.
brownish yellow (10YR6/8) sandy clay loam diamicton; many coarse
prominent yellowish red (5YR4/6 & 5/8) and very dark gray (10YR3/1)
mottles (darker mottles are MnOx staining); alternating wavy and irregular
bedding; firm; strong effervescence; unknown lower boundary; subrounded
1.0x1.0x0.5 black metamorphic pebble; mottle banding within texturally
distinct bedding, till. NTI Sample #17.
brown to light yellowish brown (10YR5/3-6/4) coarse silt loam; common
medium distinct reddish yellow (7.5YR6/8) and light gray (2.5Y7/0)
mottles; massive; friable; slight effervescence; unknown lower boundary;
possible loess or alluvially/colluvially reworked loess. NTI Sample #18.
very dark grayish brown to dark grayish brown (2.5Y3/2-4/2) clay loam
diamicton; massive; extremely firm; slight effervescence; unknown lower
boundary, till. NTI Sample #19.
strong brown (7.5YR5/6) sandy clay loam diamicton; common fine
prominent black (10YR2/1) mottles (MnOx staining along joints); massive
with traces of fabric; very firm; strong effervescence; unknown lower
Depth
(feet)
Horizon
or Zone
51.8-52.0
54.1-54.5
56.6-57.0
59.1-59.5
60.2-60.5
CR
60.5-61.0
RC & R
End of Split-Spoon
Boring @ 61.0
Description
boundary. Drillers reported lithologic change at 51.7 ft., till. NTI Sample
#20A
grayish brown (2.5Y5/2) fine sand; single grain; loose; noneffervescent;
abrupt lower boundary, alluvium. NTI Sample #20B
light brownish gray (2.5Y6/2-6/4) silt loam; many medium distinct strong
brown (7.5YR5/8) mottles; weak thin bedding; friable; strong
effervescence; unknown lower boundary, alluvium/colluvium. NTI Sample
#21.
uppermost 0.04 feet is a light brownish gray (10YR-2.5Y6/2) fine silt loam;
few fine prominent reddish yellow (7.5YR6/8) mottles; massive; friable to
firm; slight effervescence; abrupt lower boundary; lowermost 0.3 feet is a
light brownish gray (10YR-2.5Y6/2) very fine sand; few medium faint
brownish yellow (10YR6/6) mottles; very weak bedding to massive; very
friable; spotty effervescence; unknown lower boundary, alluvial. NTI
Sample #22.
olive brown (2.5Y4/4; saturated) fine to coarse sand; few fine distinct
strong brown (7.5YR5/6) mottles; single grain; loose; slight effervescence;
poorly sorted sands indicates probable flood deposit, fluvial. NTI Sample
#23.
multicolored and alternating silt loams (2.5Y6/0-6/2; possibly weathered
shale), silty clay loams (10YR5/4), and sandy clay loams (7.5YR6/8);
common prominent black (10YR2/1) MnOx stains; thin bedding; silt loams
are hard or weakly cemented and have slight effervescence; silty clay loams
are very firm and have strong effervescence; sandy clay loams are firm and
have strong effervescence; boundaries within sample are irregular;
unknown lower boundary; subrounded 1.75x1.0x0.75 pebble at lower
boundary, fluvially reworked bedrock. NTI Sample #24.
brown (10YR5/3) very coarse sands; single grain; loose; violent
effervescence; unknown lower boundary; very poor recovery; sand grains
are angular and probably represent locally reworked sedimentary bedrock
lying on top of shale bedrock; bedrock shale beds reported by drillers at
60.5 feet. NTI Sample #25.
top of bedrock elevation is 897.71 ft.
Project Name
: Lillydale Slide
Depth
in
feet
Project Location
: Lillydale, MN
County
: Ramsey
Description Performed
: by: Brian Gulbranson
Surface grade elelvation:
N/A
MAJOR LITHOLOGY
DESCRIPTIONS
GRAPHIC LOG
MINOR LITHOLOGY
DESCRIPTIONS
No sample
Argillaceous Limestone
70
Page 1 of 4
Project Name
: Lillydale Slide
Depth
in
feet
GRAPHIC LOG
Project Location
: Lillydale, MN
County
: Ramsey
Description Performed
: by: Brian Gulbranson
Surface grade elelvation:
N/A
MAJOR LITHOLOGY
DESCRIPTIONS
MINOR LITHOLOGY
DESCRIPTIONS
75
Shale, 75 - 75.6
80
Limestone, 82 - 82.2
Page 2 of 4
Project Name
: Lillydale Slide
Depth
in
feet
Project Location
: Lillydale, MN
County
: Ramsey
Description Performed
: by: Brian Gulbranson
Surface grade elelvation:
Date
: 7/2/13
Company/Method : Northern Technologies Inc.
Sample Method : Wire line Core
Field Observer(s) : Ryan Benson
:
Weather
N/A
MAJOR LITHOLOGY
DESCRIPTIONS
GRAPHIC LOG
85
MINOR LITHOLOGY
DESCRIPTIONS
Coquina, 84.9 - 85
Shale, 85.2 - 85.35
Coquina, 85.4 - 85.7
Coquina, 86 - 86.1
90
No sample
K - Bentonite
Page 3 of 4
Project Name
: Lillydale Slide
Depth
in
feet
GRAPHIC LOG
Project Location
: Lillydale, MN
County
: Ramsey
Description Performed
: by: Brian Gulbranson
Surface grade elelvation:
N/A
MAJOR LITHOLOGY
DESCRIPTIONS
MINOR LITHOLOGY
DESCRIPTIONS
95
Limestone, 98 - 98.25
Page 4 of 4
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
966.6 ft
Surface Elev.:
TOPSOIL | FILL (SM): fine to medium grained; black;
965.1 moist; medium dense; trace to few coarse grained
sand to fine grained gravel; subrounded to rounded;
with organics.
LEAN CLAY | FILL (CL): orangish to reddish brown
5
with dark brown; dry to moist; medium stiff to stiff;
with silt; few to some fine grained sand; trace coarse
grained sand to fine grained gravel; subrounded to
rounded.
7.0 ft: Layer (up to 12" thick) of poorly graded sand
with clay (SP-SC); fine to medium grained; reddish
10
brown; dry to moist; medium dense; few coarse
grained sand.
954.1
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
fine to medium grained; light brown to brown; dry to
moist; dense to very dense; some coarse grained
15
sand; few to some fine grained gravel; trace coarse
grained gravel; subrounded; some apparent cohesion
948.6 due to clay content.
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL): light brown to brown; dry
to moist; very stiff to hard; some fine to coarse
20
grained sand; few to some fine grained gravel; trace
coarse grained gravel; subrounded.
St. Paul, MN
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 1 of 4
Project:
965
960
955
950
945
Physical Properties
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
10
Client:
FINES
30
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
WC
pcf
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
80
20
1.5
19.6 102.8
14
1.75
1.75
25
5.2
39
4.5
35
9.1
127.4
4.5
48
12.5
11
48
68
6.3
>> 67
18.0
43
7.8
31
27
4.5
942.1
25
24.5
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
fine to medium grained; light brown to light reddish
940
19
brown; moist; medium dense; few coarse grained
sand to fine grained gravel; subrounded; occasional
937.6 thin layer of moist, clean, very fine to fine grained
17
29.0
sand.
30
Continued Next Page
Completion Depth:
104.0
Remarks: Coring time per foot continually increased with depth
25
6/18/14
6/25/14
JWH
Glacial Ridge
3 1/4" ID HSA
966.6
N 148,037.2 ft E 570,885.8 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
7.2
85
At Time of Drilling
65.0
5.2
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 2 of 4
Project:
935
930
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
WC
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
10
30
Client:
FINES
30
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
pcf
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
80
14
7.9
26
32.5
18
12.9
21
30
67
91
11.7
1.5
927.6
39.0
925
920
30
19.9
31
44.0
33
24
101.9
1.5
36
4
49
88
6.6
39
50
34
915
16
913.6
53.0
55
910
1.5
25
60
>> 50/2"
>> 84
907.6
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Logged By:
Drilling Contractor:
Drilling Method:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Coordinates:
Datum:
16.7
59.0
104.0
6/18/14
6/25/14
JWH
Glacial Ridge
3 1/4" ID HSA
966.6
N 148,037.2 ft E 570,885.8 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
At Time of Drilling
65.0
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 3 of 4
Project:
Physical Properties
6/18/14
6/25/14
JWH
Glacial Ridge
3 1/4" ID HSA
966.6
N 148,037.2 ft E 570,885.8 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
PL
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
SAND
SILT
20
30
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
FINES
40
20
40
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
10
60
Client:
60
20
40
40
60
80
78
Rock Core
65.0
pcf
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
%
9.1
14.4
33
37
13.7
119
4.9
62
2.1
156.8
210.6
69
20
54
18.8
WC
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
60
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 4 of 4
Project:
875
870
865
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
30
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
10
90
Client:
FINES
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
80
WC
%
pcf
17.3 114.9
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
8.4
94.0
100
97.5
99.0
13
123.4
6.2
6.4
140.4
21.5
104.0
115
120
104.0
6/18/14
6/25/14
JWH
Glacial Ridge
3 1/4" ID HSA
966.6
N 148,037.2 ft E 570,885.8 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
75
74
92.5
110
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Logged By:
Drilling Contractor:
Drilling Method:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Coordinates:
Datum:
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
At Time of Drilling
65.0
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 1 of 4
Project:
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
CLAY
LL
FINES
972.6 ft
Surface Elev.:
10
20
30
40
20
40
60
20
LEAN CLAY (CL): orangish brown; dry to wet;
16
medium stiff to stiff; with silt; few fine grained sand;
trace medium grained sand to fine grained gravel;
970
5
subangular to angular.
968.1
13
4.5
5
CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine to medium grained;
966.6 reddish brown; moist to wet; medium dense; few to
12.9
24.3
6.0
14
some coarse grained sand to coarse grained gravel;
965
subangular to angular.
20
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL): light brown; moist to wet;
stiff
to
very
stiff;
some
fine
to
medium
grained
sand;
10
trace coarse grained sand to coarse grained gravel;
21
subangular to angular; occasional thin layer of wet,
fine grained sand.
960
958.6
14.0
CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine to medium grained; brown
42
15
956.6 with orange to red oxidation; moist to wet; dense; few
to some coarse grained sand; trace to few fine to
16.0
30
coarse grained gravel; subangular to angular.
955
9
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL): brown; moist to wet; very
41
stiff to hard; with fine to medium grained sand; few
20
coarse grained sand; trace fine to coarse grained
36
gravel; subangular to angular.
19.5 ft: Layer (up to 6" thick) of clayey gravel (GC);
950
30
fine to coarse grained; greenish white; dry.
948.1
25
24.5
25
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
fine to medium grained; tan to light brown; wet;
14
945.1 medium dense; trace medium to coarse grained
945
sand.
27.5
25.0 ft: Layer (up to 12" thick) of sandy lean clay
(CL).
30
Continued Next Page
Completion Depth:
82.0
Remarks: Offset approximately 25 ft southeast due to landslide scarp near staked location.
6/26/14
7/10/14
JWH/KNA
Glacial Ridge
3 1/4" ID HSA
972.6
N 146,215.4 ft E 569,917.8 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
SILT
N in blows/ft
SAND
40
60
Rock Core
pcf
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
80
4.5
25
0.5
9.2
126.6
15.4
2.22
2.75
2.5
2
69
7.7
126.4
8.4
128.8
15.5
WC
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 2 of 4
Project:
Physical Properties
35
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
30
WC
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
940
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
10
30
Client:
FINES
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
pcf
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
80
19
2.25
30
8
25
62
88
10.2
935
22
40
930
925
920
915
11.1 120.4
22
930.1
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Logged By:
Drilling Contractor:
Drilling Method:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Coordinates:
Datum:
82.0
6/26/14
7/10/14
JWH/KNA
Glacial Ridge
3 1/4" ID HSA
972.6
N 146,215.4 ft E 569,917.8 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
2.25
20
42.5
2.25
18
46.0
19.7
10.5
19
22.4
10.7 125.6
23
1.5
1.25
49.0
17
52.0
21.9
1
53.5
26
55.5
10
23
92
4.6
34
Remarks: Offset approximately 25 ft southeast due to landslide scarp near staked location.
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
At Time of Drilling
44.0
Saturated Layer from 44.0 to 45.0 ft.
At Time of Drilling
50.5
Saturated Layer from 50.5 to 53.0 ft.
At Time of Drilling
70.0
Saturated Layer from 70.0 to Bedrock Surface.
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 3 of 4
Project:
Physical Properties
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
30
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
10
60
Client:
FINES
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
6/26/14
7/10/14
JWH/KNA
Glacial Ridge
3 1/4" ID HSA
972.6
N 146,215.4 ft E 569,917.8 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
Rock Core
pcf
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
%
3.3
13.1
83
100
Qu
80
WC
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 4 of 4
Project:
Physical Properties
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
30
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
10
90
Client:
FINES
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
WC
%
pcf
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
80
89.5
89.8
92.0
92.4
92.5
94.8
95.0
95.3
96.5
97.0
98.0
98.3
99.0
100.0
73
85
100
110
115
120
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Logged By:
Drilling Contractor:
Drilling Method:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Coordinates:
Datum:
82.0
6/26/14
7/10/14
JWH/KNA
Glacial Ridge
3 1/4" ID HSA
972.6
N 146,215.4 ft E 569,917.8 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
Remarks: Offset approximately 25 ft southeast due to landslide scarp near staked location.
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
At Time of Drilling
44.0
Saturated Layer from 44.0 to 45.0 ft.
At Time of Drilling
50.5
Saturated Layer from 50.5 to 53.0 ft.
At Time of Drilling
70.0
Saturated Layer from 70.0 to Bedrock Surface.
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
950
23621151.00
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
0
St. Paul, MN
Location:
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Surface Elev.:
964.4 ft
0.3
Client:
Physical Properties
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
30
940
935
20
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
80
4.0
pcf
Qu
4
22.2
10
69
96
8.5
25
6.5
13.7 104.7
97
14
10.5
1.8
14
13
1.3
13
944.4
20.0
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Logged By:
Drilling Contractor:
Drilling Method:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Coordinates:
Datum:
FINES
14
945
WC
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
10
15
Elevation, feet
955
Sheet 1 of 3
Project:
960
71.0
6/25/14
6/25/14
KNA
AET
3 1/4" ID HSA
964.4
N 147,165.0 ft E 571,159.7 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
17.2 21.8
10
22.0
20.4
13
15
13.5
13
28.0
17
9.9
130.2
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
23.0
At Time of Drilling
21.5
Saturated layer from 21.5 to 38 ft.
At Time of Drilling
63.5
Saturated layer from 63.5 to 67 ft.
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
920
915
910
35
40
45
50
55
St. Paul, MN
23621151.00
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
30
Location:
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Elevation, feet
925
Sheet 2 of 3
Project:
930
Physical Properties
PL
SAND
SILT
20
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
FINES
30
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
WC
%
pcf
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
80
21
12
12.3
10.2
12
19.8
22
38.0
10.3 127.8
1.32
24
28
41.5
12.1 127.3
32
43.5
>> 100/2"
41
>> 50/5"
>> 100/6"
>> 50/5"
>> 101
51.0
12.7
14.1
>> 71
55.0
LEAN CLAY WITH SILT (CL): yellowish tan; moist;
907.4 very dense; some gravel; blocky; orange and black
oxidized zones.
57.0
905.9
SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium grained; tan;
58.5
moist; dense.
905
60
Continued Next Page
Completion Depth:
71.0
Remarks: Mud rotary started at 32 feet
6/25/14
6/25/14
KNA
AET
3 1/4" ID HSA
964.4
N 147,165.0 ft E 571,159.7 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
909.4
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
10
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
43.6
26.7
>> 70
15.7 112.8
5.33
>> 110
30
23.0
At Time of Drilling
21.5
Saturated layer from 21.5 to 38 ft.
At Time of Drilling
63.5
Saturated layer from 63.5 to 67 ft.
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 3 of 3
Project:
900
895
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
60.5
20
30
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
10
60
Client:
FINES
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
>> 110
80
83
WC
%
pcf
Qu
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
16.6
>> 82
65.0
67.0
>> 100/5.5"
>> 100/3"
>> 100/2"
>> 100/2"
71.0
75
80
85
90
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Logged By:
Drilling Contractor:
Drilling Method:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Coordinates:
Datum:
71.0
6/25/14
6/25/14
KNA
AET
3 1/4" ID HSA
964.4
N 147,165.0 ft E 571,159.7 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
23.0
At Time of Drilling
21.5
Saturated layer from 21.5 to 38 ft.
At Time of Drilling
63.5
Saturated layer from 63.5 to 67 ft.
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
0
960
5
955
10
950
15
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Surface Elev.:
962.5 ft
St. Paul, MN
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 1 of 2
Project:
Physical Properties
0.5
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
30
WC
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
FINES
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
tsf
tsf
pcf
25.6
98.1
0.7
122.2
1.09
130.5
2.57
7.9
129.8
2.78
Gs RQD
80
4.0
17
12.7
9.3
9.0
10.3 15.2
>> 69
9
>> 63
70
95
8.2
25
>> 51
41
20
941.0
940.5 LEAN CLAY WITH SILT (CL): brown; moist to wet;
21.5
940
20
22.0
1/2 inch sand seams throughout.
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): fine
937.5
16
to medium grained; tan; moist; medium dense; 1/2"
25
25.0
clay with silt seams throughout; some large gravel.
935.5
SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium grained; reddish
27.0
935
brown; moist; medium dense; with clay; 10% small to
17
large gravel.
Wet
from
26
to
27
feet.
30
Continued Next Page
Completion Depth:
50.0
Remarks: Offset 50 feet southeast of landslide scarp
6/24/14
6/24/14
KNA
AET
3 1/4" ID HSA
962.5
N 147,248.1 ft E 570,934.1 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
Qp
Qu
945
WATER
CONTENT
%
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
10
Client:
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
38
1
9.9
92
22.7
11.4
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
30
930
35
925
40
920
45
915
50
St. Paul, MN
23621151.00
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(ASTM D2488)
Location:
Graphic Log
Depth, feet
Sheet 2 of 2
Project:
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST DATA
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
GRAVEL
PL
SAND
SILT
20
30
WC
CLAY
LL
N in blows/ft
10
931.5 LEAN CLAY (CL): brown and gray; moist to wet; very
930.5 stiff; with medium to coarse sand and small to large
gravel; very stiff; medium to high plasticity; oxidation
staining. (Continued)
SILT (ML): orange; moist to wet; with sand and
927.0 gravel; some clay; slightly cohesive.
SILTY SAND TO SILTY GRAVEL (SM): fine to
medium grained; tan to brown; moist; dense to very
dense; black-colored seams; oxidation staining.
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): fine to coarse
grained; tan and brown; moist; medium dense to
dense; 20% small to large gravel; 10% silt; appears
920.0 laminated.
Orange stained sand from 40.5 to 41 feet due to
oxidation.
917.0 3 inch wet gray claystone/shale at 41 feet.
Wet from 42 to 42.5 feet.
SILTY SAND (SM): fine to coarse grained; brown;
moist to wet; dense to very dense; with clay and
gravel; black and orange staining.
912.5 2 inch wet gravel seam at 43.25 feet.
LEAN CLAY (CL): gray; moist; hard; 10% medium to
coarse sand; blocky; medium plasticity.
Bottom of Boring at 50.0 feet
Client:
FINES
40
20
40
60
20
40
60
pcf
Qp
tsf
tsf
Gs RQD
80
12.2 126.6
31.0
32.0
Qu
1.5
35
44
35.5
46
93
29
4.6
4.8
45
43
42.5
11.1
>> 71
33.1
11.8
45.5
>> 31/6"
>> 101
12.4 123.8
16.11
50.0
55
60
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Logged By:
Drilling Contractor:
Drilling Method:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Coordinates:
Datum:
50.0
6/24/14
6/24/14
KNA
AET
3 1/4" ID HSA
962.5
N 147,248.1 ft E 570,934.1 ft
NAD83 Survey Feet
SAMPLE TYPES
Split Spoon
3-inch
Shelby Tube
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
LEGEND
MC Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Qu Unconfined Compression
Qp Hand Penetrometer UC
Gs Specific Gravity
RQD Rock Quality Designation
Attachment C
Laboratory Physical Test Results
Lilydale Slide
Client:
Boring #
Sample #
Depth (ft)
71
80
Type or BPF
Bag
Bag
Material
Classification
Lean Clay
(CL)
Fat Clay
(CH)
16.3
13.8
43.0
52.4
16.4
18.6
26.6
33.8
Job:
9014
Date: 7/31/2013
Grain Size
Sample No.
Sample
Depth (ft) Type
HA 1
4-5
7/10/13
7/10/13
Soil Classification
Bag
Bag
9014
Job No. :
Test Date:
Report Date:
Lilydale Slide
Gravel
Coarse
2
100
Fine
1
3/4
3/8
Sand
Medium
Coarse
#4
#10
#20
Hydrometer Analysis
Fines
Fine
#40
#100
#200
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
50
20
10
.5
.2
0.1
.05
.02
.005
0.01
.002
Other Tests
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
7.5
Water Content
Dry Density (pcf)
Specific Gravity
Porosity
Organic Content
pH
Shrinkage Limit
Penetrometer
Qu (psf)
5.8
Percent Passing
*
2"
1.5"
1"
982.0
Mass (g)
1039.9
100.0
3/4"
100.0
91.6
3/8"
98.5
87.2
#4
95.5
80.1
#10
78.8
69.6
#20
65.6
59.8
#40
50.6
44.7
#100
27.3
15.9
#200
20.0
11.6
D60
D30
D10
CU
CC
Remarks:
(* = assumed)
0.001
Direct Shears
Job No.:
9014
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/10/2013
7/29/2013
Shear Rate
0.003 (in/min)
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Max Stress
Diameter (In.)
2.50
2.50
2.50
0.92
Initial
-0.005
2.68
Failure Criterion:
Plasticity Index:
(*) = Assumed Specific Gravity
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to given densities, using -#10 material in loose condition; Inundated after
applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant rate of 0.003 inches/minute.
-0.01
Thickness (In.)
0.92
0.92
5.7
5.7
5.7
107.9
107.9
107.9
Before Shear
-0.015
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.89
20.2
19.6
18.8
108.6
109.7
111.3
Normal Stress
0.50
1.00
2.00
-0.02
-0.025
Shear Stress
0.34
0.71
1.31
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.03
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.035
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
32.7 deg.
Friction Angle:
Apparent
Apparent
0.037 TSF
Cohesion
1.4
0.2
32.7 deg.
0.036
TSF
Cohesion
1.2
1.75
1.5
1
Shear Stress (TSF)
0.8
0.6
1.25
0.75
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.25
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
Job No.:
9014
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/10/2013
7/29/2013
Shear Rate
0.003 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to given densities, using -#10 material in loose condition; Inundated after
applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant rate of 0.003 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.68
Failure Criterion:
Max Stress
Diameter (In.)
2.50
2.50
2.50
0.92
D
X
Initial
-0.005
-0.01
Thickness (In.)
0.92
0.92
7.5
7.5
7.5
108.3
108.3
108.3
Before Shear
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.90
0.90
19.6
19.3
18.9
109.8
110.3
111.0
Normal Stress
0.50
1.00
2.00
Shear Stress
1.46
0.40
0.74
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.03
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.035
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
= 35.2 deg.
Apparent
Friction Angle:
Apparent
0.046 TSF
Cohesion
1.6
0.2
35.1 deg.
0.046
TSF
Cohesion
2
1.4
1.75
1.2
Shear Stress (TSF)
1.5
1
0.8
1.25
0.6
0.75
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.25
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
Boring:
9014
Job #:
Date:
Sample:
7/29/2013
71
Depth:
Location:
Soil Type:
Remarks:
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM:D6467-06a. The testing chamber was modified to minimize sidewall friction.
The specimen was air dried and ground through a #200 sieve. The specimen was the rehydrated past the liquid limit and allowed to adjust for at least 10 days. The specimen was then placed into the testing
chamber with a spatula. The sample was incrementally consolidated to 7.7 tsf and then unloaded to the initial testing pressure and presheared a minimum of 1 full rotation. The testing chamber was then removed
from the apparatus and the wall height adjusted to specimen height minimizing sidewall friction. The testing chamber was then placed into the appatarus and sheared at the given rate until a constant load was
measured. The specimen was then loaded to the next normal pressure and sheared again. This was repeated for a 3rd pressure before completing the test.
Shear Rate:
0.0270
/min
Initial Ht:
0.197 in
Outer Dia.:
3.937 in
Inner Dia.:
2.756 in
Atterberg Limits
1.50 tsf
in
0.57 tsf
20.7
Normal
Height
Residual
Secant
2.25 tsf
in
0.83 tsf
20.3
3.00 tsf
in
1.10 tsf
20.1
tsf
in
tsf
PL:
PI:
Clay Fraction (%):
Organic Content (%):
Strength Envelope
Secant Angles
=19.4
c =0.04 TSF
0
0
Normal Stress
Normal Stress
Change in Thickness vs Angle of Rotation
1.2
0.012
0.01
0.8
43.0
16.4
26.6
LL:
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
-0.002
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Degrees Rotation
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
Degrees Rotation
3.5
4.5
Boring:
9014
Job #:
Date:
Sample:
7/24/2013
80
Depth:
Location:
Soil Type:
Remarks:
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM:D6467-06a. The testing chamber was modified to minimize sidewall friction.
The specimen was air dried and ground through a #200 sieve. The specimen was the rehydrated past the liquid limit and allowed to adjust for at least 10 days. The specimen was then placed into the testing
chamber with a spatula. The sample was incrementally consolidated to 7.7 tsf and then unloaded to the initial testing pressure and presheared a minimum of 1 full rotation. The testing chamber was then removed
from the apparatus and the wall height adjusted to specimen height minimizing sidewall friction. The testing chamber was then placed into the appatarus and sheared at the given rate until a constant load was
measured. The specimen was then loaded to the next normal pressure and sheared again. This was repeated for a 3rd pressure before completing the test.
Shear Rate:
0.0270
/min
Initial Ht:
0.197 in
Outer Dia.:
3.937 in
Inner Dia.:
2.756 in
Atterberg Limits
1.50 tsf
in
0.46 tsf
17.3
Normal
Height
Residual
Secant
2.25 tsf
in
0.68 tsf
16.8
3.00 tsf
in
0.90 tsf
16.7
tsf
in
tsf
PL:
PI:
Clay Fraction (%):
Organic Content (%):
Strength Envelope
Secant Angles
=16.1
TSF
4
c =0.03
52.4
18.6
33.8
LL:
0
0
Normal Stress
Normal Stress
0.01
0.9
0.008
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.2
-0.002
0.1
0
-0.004
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Degrees Rotation
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
Degrees Rotation
3.5
4.5
Table C-1
Lilydale Regional Park
Soil Testing Summary
Sample Location
Depth
Boring No.
(ft)
Notes
(1)
(2)
Saturated
Atterberg Limits
Unconfined
Direct Shear
Grain Size Distribution
Liq. Limit
Plast. Limit Plast. Index Compressive Friction Angle Cohesion gravel sand silt clay fines Permeability
(cm/sec)
(% moisture content)
Strength (tsf)
(degrees)
(psf)
(%)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
35.1
92
4.5
75.5
20
32.7
74
19.9 68.5
11.6
43
16.4
26.6
52.4
18.6
33.8
33.2
33.0
19.9
10.8
57.2
32.0
0.1
84.5
15.4
21.1
46.4 23.5
3.9
83.9
12.2
39.9
37.6
22.5
9.0
60.0
31.0
7.6
10.2
82.3
7.7
60.8 26.7
94
9.0
32.5
13.1
28.5
512
4.9
210.6
54.0
21.8
32.2
8.4
6.2
21.5
24.3
12.9
11.4
2.2
33.7
22.4
10.5
136
28.7
106
31.3
184
11.9
7.5
4.8
31.5
1.60E-04
21.8
19.8
17.2
10.2
29.8
80
33.4
180
96.5
3.5
0.1
83.4
16.5
4.6
9.6
1.3
43.6
14.1
29.5
5.3
15.2
10.3
0.7
2.80E-07
1.1
2.00E-08
4.9
8.6
60.6 25.4
5.4
30.8
0.9
90.9
8.2
6.6
2.6
2.8
22.7
9.9
12.8
1.5
33.1
11.1
22.0
12
15.2
54.0
32.1
13.2
12
9.9
21.8
14.4
4.2
12
4.6
33.8
17.7
10.6
16.1
14
0.7
210.6
20.4
55.1
30.00
110
4.4
89.0
10
28.5
35.1
31.6
2.3
10
74.0
512.0
156.8
130.6
16
0.0
39.9
9.3
10.3
16
4
4
16
37.6 23.5 4.8 3.5
96.5 26.7 12.2 38.5
70.7 25.5 7.9 20.0
17.4 1.4 3.4 11.3
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Moisture Contents
Job:
9428
Date:
7/8/14
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
Sample
21
47
49
57
62
Depth (ft)
2-4
10-12
42-43
18-19.5
20-22
38-40
46-48
Type or BPF
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
Classification
Sandy Lean
Clay
(CL/SC)
Lean Clay
(CL)
Clayey Sand
with little
gravel
(SC)
Clayey Sand
with a trace of
gravel
(SC)
Clayey Sand
with a little
gravel
(SC)
Clayey Sand
with a trace of
gravel
(SC)
19.6
9.1
24.0
7.7
8.4
11.1
10.7
102.8
127.4
101.9
126.4
128.8
120.4
125.6
Job:
9428
Client
Date:
7/8/2014
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
Depth (ft)
6-8
18-20
24-26
30-32
34-36
46-48
54-56
60-62
Type or BPF
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
Silty Sand
(SM)
Clayey Sand
(SC)
Sandy Lean
Clay with a
little gravel
(CL)
Silty Clayey
Sand with
gravel
(SC-SM)
7.9
12.9
6.6
16.7
9.1
Sample #
Material
Classification
Silty Sand
Clayey Sand Silty Sand with
(SM) with
with a trace of
a trace of
patches of
gravel
gravel
Lean Clay (CL) (SC/SC-SM)
(SM)
5.2
7.8
7.2
SB-2-14
SB-2-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
Sample #
37
38
40
43
53
60
66
70
Depth (ft)
68-70
85-86
2-4
8-10
26-28
44-45
52-53
55.5-56
Type or BPF
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
Material
Classification
Silty Clayey
Sand
(SC-SM)
Fat Clay
(CH)
Lean Clay
(CL)
Clayey Sand
(SC)
Silty Sand
(SM)
14.4
18.8
25.0
15.4
15.5
19.7
21.9
6.0
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
Sample #
74
78
Depth (ft)
62-64
70-72
Type or BPF
SB
SB
Material
Classification
Silty Sand
(SM)
Silty Sand
(SM)
3.3
13.1
Cherokee Heights
Job:
9444
Date:
7/15/14
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
Sample
K40
K46
28-30
40-42
SB
SB
Depth (ft)
Type or BPF
Classification
9.9
12.1
130.2
127.3
Cherokee Heights
Client
Job:
9444
Date: 7/16/2014
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
Sample #
K27
K31
K34
K36
K38
K42
K53
K54
Depth (ft)
2-4
10-12
16-18
20-22
24-26
32-34
50-52
52-54
Type or BPF
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
Material
Classification
Lean Clay
(CL)
Sand, fine
grained
(SP)
Sand, fine
grained (SP)
Silty Clayey
Sand
(SC-SM/SM)
Clayey Sand
(SC)
Sand
(SP)
Silty Sand
(SM)
22.2
1.8
1.3
20.4
13.5
12.3
12.7
26.7
STP-B-1
STP-B-2
STP-B-2
STP-B-2
STP-B-2
Sample #
K58
K4
K15
K20
K23a
Depth (ft)
60-62
6-8
28-30
38-40
44-45
Type or BPF
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
Material
Classification
Clayey Sand
(SC)
Silty Sand
(SM)
Sandy Lean
Clay
(CL)
Silty Sand
(SM)
Sandy Lean
Clay
(CL)
16.6
12.7
11.4
4.8
11.8
Grain Size
Sample No.
SB-2-14
SB-3-14
56
Sample
Depth (ft) Type
Fine
SB
34-36
SB
100
3/4
3/8
Sand
Medium
Coarse
#4
#10
6/26/14
7/8/14
Soil Classification
36-38
Gravel
Coarse
9428
Job No. :
Test Date:
Report Date:
#20
Hydrometer Analysis
Fines
Fine
#40
#100
#200
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
50
20
10
.5
.2
0.1
.05
.02
Liquid Limit
Mass (g)
Plastic Limit
2"
1.5"
350.1
249.1
D60
D30
100.0
D10
89.4
CU
3/4"
82.5
100.0
3/8"
81.9
96.4
#4
78.9
92.4
Organic Content
#10
74.7
88.4
pH
#20
70.1
82.9
Shrinkage Limit
#40
61.7
73.2
Penetrometer
#100
40.9
49.4
Qu (psf)
#200
32.5
38.5
11.7
10.2
2.67*
2.67*
Porosity
.002
1"
Water Content
.005
Percent Passing
Other Tests
Plasticity Index
0.01
CC
Remarks:
(* = assumed)
0.001
Job No. :
9428
Test Date:
6/26/14
Report Date:
7/8/14
Spec 1
SB-2-14
Spec 2
SB-3-14
Sample No.
56
Sample
Depth (ft) Type
Soil Classification
36-38
SB
34-36
SB
Spec 3
Sieve Data
Sieve
2"
1.5"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#100
#200
Specimen 1
% Passing
100.0
89.4
82.5
81.9
78.9
74.7
70.1
61.7
40.9
32.5
Specimen 1
Diameter (mm)
% Passing
0.031
24.9
0.020
20.7
0.012
17.3
0.009
14.9
0.006
12.5
0.003
9.9
0.001
8.6
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Sieve
% Passing
2"
1.5"
1"
3/4"
100.0
3/8"
96.4
#4
92.4
#10
88.4
82.9
#20
73.2
#40
#100
49.4
#200
38.5
Hydrometer Data
Specimen 2
Diameter
% Passing
0.033
27.3
0.021
22.9
0.012
19.6
0.009
17.2
0.006
15.4
0.003
12.6
0.001
10.2
Remarks
Specimen 2
Sieve
2"
1.5"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#100
#200
Specimen 3
% Passing
Specimen 3
Diameter
% Passing
Specimen 3
Richfield, MN 55423
Sample No.
Sample
Depth (ft) Type
14-16
Jar
SB-2-14
28-30
Jar
SB-2-14
46-48
Jar
Gravel
Fine
100
3/4
Sand
Medium
Coarse
3/8
#4
#10
6/26/14
7/3/14
Soil Classification
SB-2-14
Coarse
9428
Job No. :
Test Date:
Report Date:
#20
Hydrometer Analysis
Fines
Fine
#40
#100
#200
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
50
20
10
.5
.05
.02
Liquid Limit
Mass (g)
Plastic Limit
2"
5.2
249.9
275.5
356.6
.005
.002
6.6
1"
D60
D30
D10
CU
100.0
3/4"
94.9
Specific Gravity
3/8"
91.7
100.0
98.9
#4
89.2
99.9
96.1
Organic Content
#10
84.7
97.5
93.7
pH
#20
79.0
92.3
85.7
Shrinkage Limit
#40
68.7
78.1
62.2
Penetrometer
#100
41.7
24.1
20.1
Qu (psf)
#200
32.0
15.4
12.2
Porosity
0.01
1.5"
Plasticity Index
6.3
0.1
Percent Passing
Other Tests
Water Content
.2
100.0
CC
Remarks:
(* = assumed)
0.001
Sample No.
SB-2-14
Sample
Depth (ft) Type
60-62
SB
47
18-19.5
SB
SB-3-14
71
56-58
SB
Sand with silt and a little gravel, medium to fine grained (SP-SM)
Gravel
Fine
100
3/4
Sand
Medium
Coarse
3/8
#4
#10
6/26/14
7/8/14
Soil Classification
SB-3-14
Coarse
9428
Job No. :
Test Date:
Report Date:
#20
Hydrometer Analysis
Fines
Fine
#40
#100
#200
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
50
20
10
.5
.2
.02
Liquid Limit
Mass (g)
Plastic Limit
2"
1.5"
Plasticity Index
263.9
291.1
341.9
.002
3/4"
80.4
100.0
Specific Gravity
3/8"
67.5
97.9
94.6
#4
60.1
91.0
89.8
Organic Content
#10
48.7
85.5
83.6
pH
#20
38.5
79.1
65.7
Shrinkage Limit
#40
31.4
68.0
36.3
Penetrometer
#100
25.1
41.3
11.0
Qu (psf)
#200
22.5
31.0
7.5
4.6
D60
D10
100.0
Porosity
.005
D30
90.9
7.7
0.01
1"
9.1
.05
Percent Passing
Other Tests
Water Content
0.1
100.0
CU
95.8
CC
Remarks:
(* = assumed)
0.001
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Sample
Type
Soil Classification
STP-B-1
K28
4-6
SB
STP-B-1
K31
10-12
SB
STP-B-1
K58
60-62
SB
Gravel
Coarse
Fine
100
3/4
3/8
Sand
Medium
Coarse
#4
#10
#20
Hydrometer Analysis
Fines
Fine
#40
9444
Job No. :
Test Date:
Report Date:
Cherokee Heights
#100
#200
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
50
20
10
.5
.2
0.1
.05
.02
D60
Liquid Limit
Mass (g)
2"
D30
1.5"
D10
1"
CU
Plasticity Index
1.8
16.6
232.2
137.1
174.2
CC
3/4"
100.0
3/8"
95.1
100.0
#4
92.3
99.9
Organic Content
#10
88.3
pH
#20
Shrinkage Limit
#40
Penetrometer
Qu (psf)
2.67*
Porosity
.002
Plastic Limit
8.5
.005
Percent Passing
Other Tests
Water Content
0.01
100.0
96.2
83.2
100.0
81.2
72.3
90.5
48.2
#100
42.2
8.4
20.8
#200
31.5
3.5
16.5
Remarks:
(* = assumed)
0.001
Sample No.
STP-B-2
K7
12-14
SB
STP-B-2
K12
22-24
SB
STP-B-2
K19
36-38
SB
Gravel
Coarse
Fine
100
3/4
Sand
Medium
Coarse
3/8
#4
#10
7/2/14
7/8/14
Soil Classification
9444
Job No. :
Test Date:
Report Date:
Cherokee Heights
#20
Hydrometer Analysis
Fines
Fine
#40
#100
#200
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
50
20
10
.5
.2
0.1
.05
.02
*
D60
Liquid Limit
Mass (g)
2"
D30
1.5"
D10
1"
CU
Plasticity Index
7.0
4.6
265.5
196.6
286.6
3/4"
100.0
3/8"
96.2
100.0
97.0
#4
91.4
99.1
95.6
Organic Content
#10
86.9
98.0
92.2
pH
#20
80.4
94.4
88.4
Shrinkage Limit
#40
68.7
80.6
77.8
Penetrometer
#100
41.0
20.6
12.3
Qu (psf)
#200
30.8
8.2
6.6
2.67*
Porosity
.002
Plastic Limit
8.2
.005
Percent Passing
Other Tests
Water Content
0.01
100.0
CC
Remarks:
(* = assumed)
0.001
Atterberg Limits
Job:
9428
Client:
Date:
7/8/2014
SB-2-14
Sample #
SB-2-14
SB-3-14
SB-3-14
38
43
62
Depth (ft)
42-43
85-86
8-10
46-48
Type or BPF
SB
SB
SB
SB
Material
Classification
Lean Clay
(CL)
Fat Clay
(CH)
Clayey Sand
(SC)
Clayey Sand
(SC)
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%)
33.0
54.0
24.3
22.4
19.9
21.8
12.9
10.5
13.1
32.2
11.4
11.9
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%)
Plastic Limit (%)
Plasticity Index (%)
Cherokee Heights
Job:
9444
Client:
Date:
7/8/2014
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
STP-B-1
STP-B-2
STP-B-2
STP-B-2
Sample #
K36
K43
K54
K6
K15
K23b
Depth (ft)
20-22
34-36
52-54
10-12
28-30
45.5-46
Type or BPF
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
Material
Classification
Silty Clayey
Sand
(SC-SM/SM)
Silty Clayey
Sand
(SC-SM/SM)
Sandy Lean
Clay
(CL)
Clayey Sand
Lean Clay with
with a trace of
sand
gravel
(CL)
(SC)
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%)
21.8
19.8
43.6
15.2
22.7
33.1
17.2
10.2
14.1
10.3
9.9
11.1
4.6
9.6
29.5
4.9
12.8
22.0
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%)
Plastic Limit (%)
Plasticity Index (%)
Direct Shears
Job No.:
9428
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/8/2014
7/20/2014
ASTM: D3080
Project/Client: Lilydale / Barr Engineering Company
Boring No.: SB-2-14
Sample No.
Location:
Soil Type:
Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM)
Depth: 20-22
Sample Type: SB
Shear Rate
0.005 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to a medium dense condition as received moisture content using -#10
material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant
rate of 0.005 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.68
Failure Criterion:
A
Diameter (In.)
2.50
2.50
2.50
Max Stress
Initial
-0.005
-0.01
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.91
7.2
7.2
7.2
116.9
116.9
116.9
Before Shear
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
Thickness (In.)
0.90
0.87
0.85
15.5
13.9
12.7
118.1
121.8
124.9
Normal Stress
0.50
1.00
2.00
Shear Stress
0.35
0.73
1.35
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.03
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.035
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
= 33.2 deg.
Apparent
Apparent
0.047 TSF
Cohesion
1.6
0.2
33.1 deg.
0.047
TSF
Cohesion
2
1.4
1.75
1.2
Shear Stress (TSF)
1.5
1
0.8
1.25
0.6
0.75
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.25
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
Job No.:
9428
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/8/2014
7/20/2014
ASTM: D3080
Project/Client: Lilydale / Barr Engineering Company
Boring No.: SB-2-14
Sample No.
Location:
Soil Type:
Sand (SP)
Depth: 28-30
Sample Type: SB
Shear Rate
0.005 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to a medium dense condition as received moisture content using -#10
material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant
rate of 0.005 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.67
Failure Criterion:
A
Diameter (In.)
2.50
2.50
2.50
Max Stress
D
X
Initial
0.005
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.91
5.2
5.2
5.2
111.3
111.3
111.4
Before Shear
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
Thickness (In.)
0.90
0.88
0.90
18.3
17.0
17.7
112.0
114.7
113.1
Normal Stress
0.50
1.00
2.00
Shear Stress
1.40
0.39
0.76
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.02
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.025
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Apparent
Apparent
0.068 TSF
Cohesion
1.6
= 33.7 deg.
0.008
Cohesion
0.15
33.3 deg.
TSF
2
1.4
1.75
1.2
Shear Stress (TSF)
1.5
1
0.8
1.25
0.6
0.75
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.25
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
Job No.:
9428
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/8/2014
7/20/2014
ASTM: D3080
Project/Client: Lilydale / Barr Engineering Company
Boring No.: SB-2-14
Sample No.
Location:
Soil Type:
Sand (SP/SP-SM)
Depth: 48-50
Sample Type: SB
Shear Rate
0.005 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to a medium dense condition as received moisture content using -#10
material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant
rate of 0.005 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.67
Failure Criterion:
A
Diameter (In.)
2.50
2.50
2.50
Max Stress
D
X
Initial
0.006
0.004
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.91
5.2
5.2
5.2
112.7
112.7
112.7
Before Shear
0.002
-0.002
Thickness (In.)
0.90
0.90
0.88
17.2
17.1
16.2
114.2
114.4
116.4
Normal Stress
1.00
2.00
4.00
Shear Stress
2.43
0.78
1.38
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.004
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.006
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Apparent
Apparent
0.256 TSF
Cohesion
= 28.5 deg.
0.072
Cohesion
0.2
29.9 deg.
TSF
3.5
2.5
3
Shear Stress (TSF)
1.5
2.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Job No.:
9428
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/8/2014
7/20/2014
ASTM: D3080
Project/Client: Lilydale / Barr Engineering Company
Boring No.: SB-3-14
Sample No. 61
Location:
Soil Type:
Sand (SP)
Depth: 45-46
Sample Type: SB
Shear Rate
0.005 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to a medium dense condition as received moisture content using -#10
material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant
rate of 0.005 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.67
Failure Criterion:
A
Diameter (In.)
2.50
2.50
2.50
Max Stress
0.001
Initial
-0.001
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.91
3.2
3.2
3.2
100.8
100.8
100.8
0
Change in Thickness (inch)
Before Shear
-0.002
Thickness (In.)
0.90
0.89
0.90
23.7
23.3
23.6
102.1
102.7
102.2
Normal Stress
1.00
2.00
4.00
-0.003
Shear Stress
0.61
1.13
2.25
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.004
-0.005
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.006
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Apparent
Friction Angle:
Apparent
0.053 TSF
Cohesion
2.5
= 28.7 deg.
0.028
Cohesion
0.2
28.9 deg.
TSF
3.5
2
1.5
2.5
1.5
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Job No.:
9428
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/8/2014
7/20/2014
ASTM: D3080
Project/Client: Lilydale / Barr Engineering Company
Boring No.: SB-3-14
Sample No. 69
Location:
Soil Type:
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Depth: 54-55.5
Sample Type: SB
Shear Rate
0.001 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to a medium dense condition as received moisture content using -#10
material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant
rate of 0.001 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.68
Failure Criterion:
Max Stress
2.50
2.50
2.50
D
X
Initial
Diameter (In.)
Change in Thickness (inch)
-0.005
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.91
12.2
12.2
12.2
118.3
118.3
118.3
Before Shear
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
Thickness (In.)
0.90
0.88
0.86
14.6
13.7
12.5
120.2
122.2
125.4
Normal Stress
1.00
2.00
4.00
Shear Stress
2.54
0.72
1.28
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.025
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.03
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Apparent
Apparent
0.092 TSF
Cohesion
= 31.3 deg.
0.091
Cohesion
0.2
31.3 deg.
TSF
3.5
2.5
3
Shear Stress (TSF)
1.5
2.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Job No.:
9444
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/8/2014
7/20/2014
Shear Rate
0.005 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to a medium dense condition as received moisture content using -#10
material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant
rate of 0.005 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.67
Failure Criterion:
A
Diameter (In.)
2.50
2.50
2.50
Max Stress
0.005
Initial
0.004
Change in Thickness (inch)
0.003
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.3
1.3
1.3
101.0
101.0
101.0
Before Shear
0.002
0.001
0
Thickness (In.)
0.89
0.89
0.89
23.2
23.0
23.0
103.0
103.2
103.3
Normal Stress
0.50
1.00
2.00
Shear Stress
0.32
0.62
1.18
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.001
-0.002
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.003
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Apparent
Friction Angle:
Apparent
0.040 TSF
Cohesion
1.4
= 29.8 deg.
0.035
Cohesion
0.15
29.8 deg.
TSF
2
1.2
1.75
1.5
Shear Stress (TSF)
0.8
0.6
1.25
0.75
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.25
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
Job No.:
9444
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/8/2014
7/20/2014
Shear Rate
0.001 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to in-situ conditions at as received moisture content using -#10 material;
Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant rate of
0.001 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.68
Failure Criterion:
Max Stress
2.50
2.50
2.50
D
X
Initial
0.004
Diameter (In.)
0.002
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.91
10.6
10.6
10.6
129.0
129.0
129.0
0.87
Before Shear
0
-0.002
Thickness (In.)
0.89
0.88
10.1
9.3
8.7
131.8
134.0
135.6
Normal Stress
0.50
1.00
2.00
Shear Stress
1.41
0.43
0.74
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.004
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.006
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Apparent
Apparent
0.090 TSF
Cohesion
1.6
= 33.4 deg.
0.078
Cohesion
0.2
33.1 deg.
TSF
2
1.4
1.75
1.2
Shear Stress (TSF)
1.5
1
0.8
1.25
0.6
0.75
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.25
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
Job No.:
9444
Test Date:
Date Reported:
7/8/2014
7/20/2014
Shear Rate
0.005 (in/min)
Remarks:
Specimens compacted to a medium dense condition as received moisture content using -#10
material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant
rate of 0.005 inches/minute.
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
2.67
Failure Criterion:
A
Diameter (In.)
2.50
2.50
2.50
Max Stress
D
X
Initial
-0.005
Thickness (In.)
0.91
0.91
0.91
4.6
4.6
4.6
97.8
97.8
97.8
Before Shear
-0.01
Thickness (In.)
0.90
0.90
0.89
25.9
25.5
24.9
98.6
99.1
100.0
Normal Stress
0.50
1.00
2.00
Shear Stress
1.21
0.33
0.66
"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a
qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are
appropriate for any particular design."
-0.015
Peak Conditions
Friction Angle:
-0.02
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Apparent
Apparent
0.055 TSF
Cohesion
1.4
= 30.0 deg.
0.055
Cohesion
0.2
30.0 deg.
TSF
2
1.2
1.75
1.5
Shear Stress (TSF)
0.8
0.6
1.25
0.75
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.25
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Shear Displacement (inch)
0.2
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
ASTM: D2166
Job:
Date:
2.5
Boring:
SB-3-14
Sample #: 42
Soil Type:
Depth:
9428
7/8/14
6-8
2
Strain Rate (in/min):
0.030
Sample Type:
SB
Dia. (in)
1.39
Ht. (in)
2.80
Height to Diameter Ratio:
2.0
1.5
Unconfined Comp. Strength:
Strain at Failure (%):
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
9.2
126.6
2.22
5.0
tsf
0.5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Boring:
Sample #:
0.9
Soil Type:
0.8
Depth:
0.7
Dia. (in):
Ht. (in):
Height to Diameter Ratio:
0.6
0.5
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
tsf
Job:
Date:
1.4
Boring:
STP-B-1
Sample #: K44
Soil Type:
1.2
Depth:
9444
7/8/14
36-38
ASTM: D2166
Cherokee Heights
Barr Engineering Company
0.8
0.6
10.3
127.8
1.32
5.3
tsf
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Soil Type:
Depth:
54-56
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
15.7
112.8
0
2
10
12
14
16
18
20
3.09
2.2
5.33
17.8
0.030
SB
tsf
ASTM: D2166
Cherokee Heights
Barr Engineering Company
Job:
Date:
Boring:
STP-B-2
Sample #: K9a
Soil Type:
16.5-17
2.5
Depth:
9444
7/8/14
1.5
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
8.0
130.5
2.57
3.3
tsf
0.5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Depth:
18-20
Soil Type:
2.5
1.5
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
7.9
129.8
0.5
0
2
10
12
14
16
18
20
3.02
2.1
2.78
4.0
0.030
SB
tsf
Job:
Date:
18
Boring:
STP-B-2
Sample #: K25
16
Soil Type:
14
ASTM: D2166
Cherokee Heights
Barr Engineering Company
Depth:
9444
7/8/14
48-50
12
10
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
12.4
123.8
16.11
10.7
tsf
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Boring:
Sample #:
0.9
Soil Type:
0.8
Depth:
0.7
Dia. (in):
Ht. (in):
Height to Diameter Ratio:
0.6
0.5
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
tsf
Boring:
Sample #:
Soil Type:
0.6
4-6
Depth:
0.5
STP-B-2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
1.2
Soil Type:
STP-B-2
Depth:
8-9.5 (top)
1
Strain Rate (in/min):
Sample Type:
Ht. (in):
Dia. (in):
2.82
Height to Diameter Ratio:
0.8
0.6
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
0.2
0
2
10
12
14
16
18
20
5.87
2.08
1.09
tsf
Max Deviator Stress:
20.7
Strain at Failure (%):
0.5
tsf
Confining Pressure:
Sketch of Specimen After
9.3
Failure
122.2
0.4
0.060
3T
Richfield, MN 55423
Boring:
Sample #:
Soil Type:
1.4
Depth:
30-32
1.2
STP-B-2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Boring:
Sample #:
0.9
Soil Type:
0.8
Depth:
0.7
Ht. (in):
Dia. (in):
Height to Diameter Ratio:
0.6
0.5
W.C. (%):
Yd (pcf):
0.4
tsf
Max Deviator Stress:
Strain at Failure (%):
tsf
Confining Pressure:
Sketch of Specimen After
Failure
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Richfield, MN 55423
Rock Testing
Job:
Date:
9428
07/08/14
Project:
Client:
Sample Identification
Box 1
2
Boring:
Sample:
Location:
75.5
Depth:
Laboratory Analysis
Core
Visual Classification:
Specimen Dimensions
Ht (in):
3.65
Dia (in):
1.78
2.49
Area (in2):
Moisture Content %
13.7%
135.3
119.0
2.05 : 1
Ht to Dia. Ratio:
Peak Strength
4.9
Remarks::
Before Test
TSF
68
After Test
PSI
Job:
Date:
9428
07/08/14
Project:
Client:
Sample Identification
Box 1
1
Boring:
Sample:
Location:
78
Depth:
Laboratory Analysis
Core
Visual Classification:
Specimen Dimensions
Ht (in):
3.79
Dia (in):
1.78
2.48
Area (in2):
Moisture Content %
2.1%
160.1
156.8
2.13 : 1
Ht to Dia. Ratio:
Peak Strength
210.6
Remarks::
Before Test
TSF
2924
After Test
PSI
Job:
Date:
9428
07/08/14
Project:
Client:
Sample Identification
Box 2
1
Boring:
Sample:
Location:
89.5
Depth:
Laboratory Analysis
Core
Visual Classification:
Specimen Dimensions
Ht (in):
3.58
Dia (in):
1.77
2.47
Area (in2):
Moisture Content %
17.3%
134.9
114.9
2.02 : 1
Ht to Dia. Ratio:
Peak Strength
8.4
Remarks::
Before Test
TSF
117
After Test
PSI
Job:
Date:
9428
07/08/14
Project:
Client:
Sample Identification
Box 3
1
Boring:
Sample:
Location:
99.5
Depth:
Laboratory Analysis
Core
Visual Classification:
Specimen Dimensions
Ht (in):
3.64
Dia (in):
1.78
2.48
Area (in2):
Moisture Content %
13.0%
139.4
123.4
2.05 : 1
Ht to Dia. Ratio:
Peak Strength
6.2
Remarks::
Before Test
TSF
87
After Test
PSI
Job:
Date:
9428
07/08/14
Project:
Client:
Sample Identification
Box 4
1
Boring:
Sample:
Location:
102.5
Depth:
Laboratory Analysis
Core
Visual Classification:
Specimen Dimensions
Ht (in):
3.62
Dia (in):
1.79
2.51
Area (in2):
Moisture Content %
6.4%
149.5
140.4
2.03 : 1
Ht to Dia. Ratio:
Peak Strength
21.5
Remarks::
Before Test
TSF
299
After Test
PSI
Permeability
Cherokee Heights
Reported To:
Boring No.:
STP-B-2
STP-B-2
8-10
4-6
8-9.5
3T
3T
3T
Sand w/silt
(SP-SM)
Silty Clay
(CL-ML)
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Ht. (in):
3.35
2.56
2.93
Dia. (in):
2.86
2.84
2.91
104.7
92.8
121.2
Water Content:
13.7%
27.4%
9.7%
Test Type:
Falling
Falling
Falling
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Trial No.:
12-16
12-16
12-16
Water Temp C:
23.0
23.0
23.0
% Compaction
% Saturation
(After Test)
95.3%
95.1%
95.1%
Sample No.:
Depth (ft):
Location:
Sample Type:
Soil Type:
Atterberg Limits
LL
PL
PI
Permeability Test
Saturation %:
Porosity:
Coefficient of Permeability
K @ 20 C (cm/sec) 1.6 x 10
K @ 20 C (ft/min)
Notes:
3.2 x 10
-4
-4
2.8 x 10
5.5 x 10
-7
-7
2.0 x 10
3.9 x 10
-6
-6
Date:
Job No.:
7/16/2014
9444
Attachment D
Site Inspection Photographs
Attachment D
Site Inspection Photographs
Photo 1 West Clay Pit and area below Bruce Vento Overlook from the air (photo provided by the
City)
Photo 2
Scarp adjacent to storm sewer outlet in Cherokee Heights ravine (May 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
Photo 3
Photo 4
Scarp from historic slope failure, pre-2014 slide (taken from Brickyard Trail Low Falls
waterfall area during the May 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
Photo 5
Photo 6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
Photo 7
Large slide, looking up through newly eroded stream channel (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 8
Soil deposited at base of slide and newly eroded stream channel (July 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
Photo 9
Erosion of lower Brickyard Trail and plugged culvert resulting from the Northwest Slope
Failure (July 2014 site visit)
Photo 10 2013 slide area, from top of East Clay Pit Falls, as observed during the May 2014 site visit
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
Photo 11 2013 side area, from below, as observed during the July 2014 site visit
Photo 12 Silty sand soil over shale bedrock in West Clay Pit (May 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
Photo 13 Close-up of overhanging soil and root zone (West Clay Pit) (May 2014 site visit)
Photo 14 Middle Clay Pit wall (note fresh soil scarp in upper right corner) (July 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
Photo 15 Middle Clay Pit with snow/ice (from seepage) on face of shale (May 2014 site visit)
Photo 16 Weeping rock outcrop in Middle Clay Pit (July 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
Photo 17 View of slope failure above Brickyard Trail (this is the source of soil on the trail) (May
2014 site visit)
Photo 19 View of slope failure above Brickyard Trail (this is the source of soil on the trail) (July
2014 site visit)
Photo 20 Soil on Brickyard Trail from slope failure shown in previous photo (July 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
10
Photo 21 Lower falls along Brickyard Trail (May 2014 site visit)
Photo 22 Slide below the Bruce Vento Spur of the Brickyard Trail (July 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
11
Photo 23 "Sinkhole" along Brickyard Trail Bluff Section (note sunken fence post) (July 2014 site
visit)
Photo 24 Soil overhang at Bruce Vento Overlook (May 2014 site visit)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
12
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix A - Geotechnical
Evaluation\Attachment D-Site Inspection Photographs.doc
13
Attachment E
Geotechnical Modeling Results
North End
Figure E-1
Figure E-2
Figure E-3
Figure E-4
Figure E-5
Figure E-6
0.75
FS = 0.75
1,000
SB-2-14
975
975
Lean Clay
Clayey Sand (no suction)
950
925
925
900
900
875
875
Poorly-Graded Sand
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
600
400
Elevation (ft)
950
Elevation (ft)
1,000
1.00
FS = 1.00
1,000
1,000
SB-2-14
975
975
Lean Clay
Clayey Sand (no suction)
925
925
900
900
875
Elevation (ft)
950
875
Poorly-Graded Sand
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
600
400
Elevation (ft)
950
1.40
FS = 1.40
1,000
1,000
SB-2-14
975
975
Lean Clay
Clayey Sand (suction)
925
925
900
900
875
Elevation (ft)
950
875
Poorly-Graded Sand
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
600
400
Elevation (ft)
950
0.75
FS = 0.75
1,000
1,000
SB-2-14
975
975
Lean Clay
Clayey Sand (no suction)
925
925
900
900
875
Elevation (ft)
950
875
Poorly-Graded Sand
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
600
400
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-5 North End Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.2 Slope - 5yr-24hr Rain Event with Suction (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_north end.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
1.29
FS = 1.29
1,000
1,000
SB-2-14
975
975
Lean Clay
Clayey Sand (suction)
925
925
900
900
875
Elevation (ft)
950
875
Poorly-Graded Sand
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
600
400
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-6 North End Drained Friction Angle with Suction with High Groundwater
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
2.1 Slope - High Groundwater with Suction (2)
File Name: Lilydale_north end.gsz
Date Saved: 1/18/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
1.00
FS = 1.00
1,000
1,000
SB-2-14
975
975
Lean Clay
Clayey Sand (suction)
925
925
900
900
875
Elevation (ft)
950
875
Poorly-Graded Sand
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
600
400
Elevation (ft)
950
FS = 0.66
0.66
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
875
900
875
Poorly-Graded Sand
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
Elevation (ft)
975
FS = 1.00
1.00
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
Elevation (ft)
975
Figure E-9 Waterfall Landslide Slope 1 Drained Friction Angle with Suction
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.2 Slope - Existing Conditions with Suction_slope 1
File Name: Lilydale_waterfall landslide.gsz
Date Saved: 1/18/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
FS = 1.18
1.18
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
875
900
875
Poorly-Graded Sand
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
Elevation (ft)
975
Figure E-10. Waterfall Landslide Slope 1 Drained Friction Angle with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.1 Slope -Rain Event_slope 1 (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_waterfall landslide.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
FS = 0.59
0.59
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
975
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
Elevation (ft)
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
Figure E-11. Waterfall Landslide Slope 1 Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.2 Slope -Rain Event with Suction_slope 1 (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_waterfall landslide.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
FS = 0.78
0.78
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
975
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
Elevation (ft)
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
Figure E-12 Waterfall Landslide Slope 1 Drained Friction Angle with Suction with High Groundwater
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
2.1 Slope - High Groundwater with Suction_slope 1 (3)
File Name: Lilydale_waterfall landslide.gsz
Date Saved: 1/18/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
FS = 1.00
1.00
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
975
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
Elevation (ft)
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
FS = 0.83
0.83
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
975
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
Elevation (ft)
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
FS = 1.00
1.00
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
975
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
Elevation (ft)
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
Figure E-15 Waterfall Landslide Slope 2 Drained Friction Angle with Suction
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.4 Slope - Existing Conditions with Suction_slope 2
File Name: Lilydale_waterfall landslide.gsz
Date Saved: 1/18/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
FS = 2.34
2.34
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
975
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
Elevation (ft)
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
Figure E-16 Waterfall Landslide Slope 2 Drained Friction Angle with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.3 Slope - Rain Event_slope 2 (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_waterfall landslide.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
FS = 0.83
0.83
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
975
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
Elevation (ft)
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
Figure E-17 Waterfall Landslide Slope 2 Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.4 Slope - Rain Event with Suction_slope 2 (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_waterfall landslide.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 109 pcf
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0 Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 120 pcf
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 133 pcf
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 % Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 137 pcf
FS = 1.91
1.91
1,000
NTI-SB-1
Slope 2
975
950
975
950
Slope 1
925
925
Lean Clay
Poorly-Graded Sand
Elevation (ft)
875
900
875
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
Shale
750
750
725
725
700
700
675
675
650
650
625
625
600
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
600
500
Elevation (ft)
900
FS = 0.70
1,050
1,050
1,025
0.70
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
FS = 1.00
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.00
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-20 Cherokee Heights Slope 1 Drained Friction Angle with Suction
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.2 Slope - Existing Conditions Slope 1 with suction
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 12/21/2014
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 109 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 137 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 1.53
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.53
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-21 Cherokee Heights Slope 1 Drained Friction Angle with Rainfall
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.1 Slope - 5yr 24 hr Rain Event Slope 1 (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Clayey Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
FS = 0.70
1,050
1,050
1,025
0.70
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Cherokee Heights\Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-22 Cherokee Heights Slope 1 Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.2 Slope -5yr 24 hr Rain Event Slope 1 with suction (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 1.11
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.11
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Cherokee Heights\Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-23 Cherokee Heights Slope 1 Drained Friction Angle with Suction with High Groundwater
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
2.1 Slope - Slope 1 with High Groundwater
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 12/26/2014
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 109 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 137 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 1.00
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.00
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
FS = 0.70
1,050
1,050
1,025
0.70
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-25 Cherokee Heights Slope 1, Ponding Drained Friction Angle at Stability
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2.1 Slope - Ponding FS=1.5_ Slope 1
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 12/21/2014
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 109 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Clayey Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 137 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
FS = 1.00
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.00
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-26 Cherokee Heights Slope 1, Ponding Drained Friction Angle with Suction
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.5.2 Slope - Ponding FS=1.5_Slope 1 with suction
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 12/21/2014
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 109 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 137 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 1.03
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.03
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-27 Cherokee Heights Slope 1, Ponding Drained Friction Angle with Rainfall
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.1 Slope -5yr 24hr Rain Event & Ponding Slope 1 (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Clayey Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
FS = 0.47
1,050
1,050
1,025
0.47
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Cherokee Heights\Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-28 Cherokee Heights Slope 1, Ponding Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.2 Slope -5yr 24hr Rain Event & Ponding Slope 1 with suction (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 0.52
1,050
1,050
1,025
0.52
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Cherokee Heights\Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
FS = 1.34
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.34
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-30 Cherokee Heights Slope 2 Drained Friction Angle with Suction
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.4 Slope - Existing Conditions Slope 2 with Suction
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 12/21/2014
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 109 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 137 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 1.53
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.53
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-31 Cherokee Heights Slope 2 Drained Friction Angle with Rainfall
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.3 Slope -5yr 24 hr Rain Event Slope 2 (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Clayey Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
FS = 1.48
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.48
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Cherokee Heights\Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-32 Cherokee Heights Slope 2 Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.4 Slope - 5yr 24 hr Rain Event Slope 2 with Suction (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 2.33
1,050
1,050
1,025
2.33
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Cherokee Heights\Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
FS = 1.34
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.34
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-34 Cherokee Heights Slope 2, Ponding Drained Friction Angle with Suction
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.5.4 Slope - Ponding FS=1.5_ Slope 2 with Suction
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 12/21/2014
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 109 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 133 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 137 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 1.53
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.53
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-35 Cherokee Heights Slope 2, Ponding Drained Friction Angle with Rainfall
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.3 Slope -5yr 24hr Rain Event & Ponding Slope 2 (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Clayey Sand (no suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
FS = 1.48
1,050
1,050
1,025
1.48
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Cherokee Heights\Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
Figure E-36 Cherokee Heights Slope 2, Ponding Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Cherokee Heights
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.4 Slope -5yr 24hr Rain Event & Ponding Slope 2 with Suction (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
Name: Poorly-Graded Sand
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 119 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 29 Phi-B: 0
Name: Lean Clay
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 Phi-B: 0
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 4,900 psf Phi': 0 Phi-B: 0
Name: Silty Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 143 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
Name: Clayey Sand (suction)
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 147 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 33 Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Sand (suction)
Residual Water Content (% of Sat WC): 10 %
FS = 2.01
1,050
1,050
1,025
2.01
1,025
Poorly-Graded Sand
1,000
1,000
STP-B-2
975
STP-B-1
Slope 2
975
Pond A
Lean Clay
950
Slope 1
925
900
925
900
875
875
Shale
850
850
825
825
800
800
775
775
750
-600
-550
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Cherokee Heights\Lilydale_cherokee heights culvert.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
750
400
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
950
0.68
1,000
1,000
SB-3-14
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
900
850
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
FS = 1.00
1.00
1,000
1,000
SB-3-14
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
900
850
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
Figure E-39 Middle Clay Pit Drained Friction Angle with Suction
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.1.2 Slope - Existing Conditions with Suction
File Name: middle clay pit_trans_rain.gsz
Date Saved: 11/25/2014
FS = 1.22
1.22
1,000
1,000
SB-3-14
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
850
900
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
Figure E-40 Middle Clay Pit Drained Friction Angle with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2.1b Slope - Rain Event (SAT)
File Name: middle clay pit_trans_rain.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
FS = 0.68
0.68
1,000
1,000
SB-3-14
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
900
850
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Middle Clay Pit\middle clay pit_trans_rain.gsz
50
100
150
200
250
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
Figure E-41 Middle Clay Pit Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2.2b Slope - Rain Event with Suction (SAT)
File Name: middle clay pit_trans_rain.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
FS = 0.92
0.92
1,000
1,000
SB-3-14
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
850
900
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\Middle Clay Pit\middle clay pit_trans_rain.gsz
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
Figure E-42 Middle Clay Pit Drained Friction Angle with Suction with High Groundwater
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
2.1 Slope - High GW with Suction
File Name: middle clay pit_trans_rain.gsz
Date Saved: 12/27/2014
FS = 1.00
1.00
1,000
1,000
SB-3-14
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
850
900
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
FS = 0.58
0.58
1,000
1,000
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
850
900
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
1.00
1,000
1,000
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
850
900
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
Figure E-45 West Clay Pit Drained Friction Angle with Suction
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.0.2 Slope - Existing Conditions with Suction
File Name: Lilydale_west clay pit_SC.gsz
Date Saved: 12/21/2014
FS = 1.11
1.11
1,000
1,000
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
850
900
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
100
150
200
250
750
300
Figure E-46 West Clay Pit Drained Friction Angle with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.1 Slope - Rain Event (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_west clay pit_SC.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
FS = 0.58
0.58
1,000
1,000
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
900
850
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\West Clay Pit\Lilydale_west clay pit_SC.gsz
150
200
250
750
300
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
Figure E-47 West Clay Pit Drained Friction Angle with Suction with Rainfall
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
1.2b.2 Slope - Rain Event with Suction (SAT)
File Name: Lilydale_west clay pit_SC.gsz
Date Saved: 1/19/2015
FS = 0.73
0.73
1,000
1,000
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
850
900
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
100
150
200
250
750
300
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\4 Geotech modeling and report\Modeling\West Clay Pit\Lilydale_west clay pit_SC.gsz
Figure E-48 West Clay Pit Drained Friction Angle with Suction with High Groundwater
Lilydale Regional Park
Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis
2.1 Slope - high GW with Suction
File Name: Lilydale_west clay pit_SC.gsz
Date Saved: 12/27/2014
FS = 1.00
1.00
1,000
1,000
975
975
950
950
Lean Clay
925
Poorly-Graded Sand
900
875
850
900
875
850
825
825
Shale
800
800
775
775
750
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
925
100
150
200
250
750
300
Appendix D
Stormwater Modeling Methodology
Prepared for
City of St. Paul Department of Parks and Recreation
January 28, 2015
Appendix D
Stormwater Modeling Methodology
January 28, 2015
Contents
1.0
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.1.1
Watershed Area................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1.2
1.1.1.3
1.1.1.4
1.1.1.5
1.1.1.6
1.2
2.0
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
List of Tables
Table D-1-1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix D - Stormwater Modeling Methodology
1.0
The U.S. EPAs Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), with a computerized graphical interface
provided by XP Software (XP-SWMM), was chosen as the computer modeling package for this study. XPSWMM uses rainfall and watershed characteristics to generate local runoff, which is routed simultaneously
through complicated pipe and overland flow networks. The model can account for detention in ponding
areas, backflow in pipes, surcharging of manholes, as well as tailwater conditions that may exist and affect
upstream storage or pipe flows. XP-SWMM Version 2014, was used to model the storm sewer, ponding,
channel flow and overland flow systems for the Brickyard Area of Lilydale Regional Park and its tributary
watershed.
1.1
Hydrologic Modeling
Three major types of information are required by XP-SWMM for hydrologic modeling: (1) watershed
characteristics, (2) rainfall data, and (3) infiltration characteristics. This data is used by XP-SWMM to
generate inflow hydrographs at various points in the drainage network. The following sections describe
each of these data sets.
1.1.1
Watershed Data
The amount of runoff from a watershed depends on numerous factors, including the total watershed area,
the soil types within the watershed, the percent of impervious area, the runoff path through the
watershed, and the slope of the land within the watershed. ArcGIS (geographic information systems)
software was used extensively in assessing the above mentioned characteristics of each watershed within
the study area.
1.1.1.1
Watershed Area
The watershed delineation was performed using the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MNDNRs) 2011 LiDAR elevation data set covering Dakota County along with the storm sewer system
(manholes, catch basins, and pipes) layout and aerial imagery. A total of 55 subwatersheds were
delineated for this area - 34 subwatersheds in the Lilydale Regional Park area and 21 subwatersheds
contributing stormwater flow to the park via the upstream storm sewer system. The delineated
subwatersheds are shown in Large Figure 4-1 of the main report.
1.1.1.2
Land use data was obtained to estimate both the percentage of directly and indirectly connected
imperviousness within each watershed. The directly-connected impervious fraction consists of the
impervious surfaces that are connected directly to stormwater conveyance systems, meaning that flows
do not cross over pervious areas. The indirectly connected impervious fraction represents impervious areas
with runoff that flows over pervious areas before reaching the stormwater conveyance system (rooftops, for
example). These fractions were calculated by first estimating the total impervious area for each
subwatershed using the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 2011 impervious layer (Xian et al, 2013).
1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix D - Stormwater Modeling Methodology
Indirectly connected impervious areas were estimated using roof delineations for the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area produced by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) in 2008 using LiDAR elevation
data. Total roof area coverage located in portions of the watershed with a land use classification consistent
with having indirectly connected impervious surfaces (i.e. Park/Recreational/preserve, single family
attached, single family detached, and undeveloped) were calculated for each subwatershed. Other
impervious area types (roads, sidewalks, driveways and parking lots) were assumed to be directly
connected to the storm sewer system. Directly connected impervious areas were calculated by subtracting
the indirectly connected impervious areas from the total impervious area for each subwatershed. The
impervious factions were determined by dividing each impervious value by the total subwatershed area for
each of the subwatersheds in the model.
1.1.1.3
The SWMM Runoff Non-linear Reservoir Method was used as the hydrograph generation technique for
this project. This method computes outflow as the product of velocity, depth and a watershed width
factor. The watershed width in XP-SWMM is defined as the subwatershed area divided by the flow path
length. This factor is a key parameter in determining the shape of the hydrograph for each subwatershed
and is often used as a calibration parameter, when calibration data is available. The main flow path length
was calculated in ArcGIS and was used in conjunction with the subwatershed area to calculate the width
parameter.
The average slope (ft/ft) for each subwatershed was calculated in ArcGIS (standard ArcGIS Spatial Analyst
raster tools) using the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR elevation data set.
1.1.1.4
Rainfall Data
The XP-SWMM model was run for the 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year recurrence,
24-hour precipitation events using the Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates. Point-based
precipitation frequency estimates for the centroid of the study area were obtained from NOAAs National
Weather Service Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PFDS) located at
http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/.
Nested 24-hour rainfall distributions were created for each modeled storm event. Each rainfall
distribution was a storm hyetograph derived from the precipitation frequency estimates. A nested
hyetograph was built, which is a hypothetical precipitation distribution where the precipitation depths for
various durations within the storm have identical exceedance probabilities. This distribution maximizes
the rainfall intensities by incorporating selected short duration intensities within those needed for longer
durations at the same probability level. As a result, the various storm durations are nested within a
single hypothetical distribution.
1.1.1.5
Infiltration Data
Soils
Soils data for the area was obtained through 2014 Gridded Soil Survey Geographic Database for the state
of Minnesota (USDA, 2014) which was imported into ArcGIS. The database included the soil names and
2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix D - Stormwater Modeling Methodology
the hydrologic soil group (HSG) designation for most of the soil types. The hydrologic soil group
designation classifies soils into groups (A, B, C, and D) based on the infiltration capacity of the soil (well
drained, sandy soils are classified as A soils; poorly drained, clayey soils are classified as D soils). When
a HSG designation was not included in the soils database, the soil description was used to estimate the
HSG. If a soil description was unavailable, the most dominant soil group in the vicinity was assumed.
Horton Infiltration
Infiltration was simulated in the XP-SWMM model using the Horton Infiltration equation. This equation is
used to represent the exponential decay of infiltration capacity of the soil that occurs during heavy storm
events. The soil infiltration capacity is a function of the following variables: F c (minimum or ultimate value
of infiltration capacity), Fo (maximum or initial value of infiltration capacity), k (decay coefficient), and time.
The actual values of Fc, Fo, and k are dependent upon soil, vegetation, and initial moisture conditions prior
to a rainfall event. Because it was not feasible to obtain this detailed information for each subwatershed
through field samples, it was necessary to make assumptions based on the various soil types throughout
the study area. Table 1 summarizes the Horton infiltration values used for each HSG to calculate
composite infiltration parameters for each subwatershed. The values shown in the table are based on
suggested values in the Storm Water Management Model, Version 4: Users Manual (U.S. EPA, 1988).
Composite Fc and Fo values were calculated for each subwatershed based on the fraction of each soil type
within the subwatershed. Global databases containing the infiltration parameters for each subwatershed
were developed and imported into the XP-SWMM models.
Table D-1-1
Hydrologic Soil
Group
Fo (in/hr)
Fc (in/hr)
k (1/sec)
0.38
0.0008
0.23
0.0008
0.1
0.0008
0.03
0.0008
1.1.1.6
Depression storage represents the volume (in inches) that must be filled with rainfall prior to the
occurrence of runoff in XP-SWMM. It characterizes the loss or "initial abstraction" caused by such
phenomena as surface ponding, surface wetting, interception and evaporation. Separate depression
storage input values are required in XP-SWMM for pervious and impervious areas.
The depression storage assumptions used for the models were based on the values used in the XPSWMM model developed for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Bloomington Use Attainability
Analysis (Barr Engineering, 2001). For this reference model, the depression storage was estimated by
plotting total precipitation for several measured rainfall events at a Bloomington continuous-recording-
3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix D - Stormwater Modeling Methodology
precipitation gage versus runoff from several Bloomington monitoring sites. A regression analysis of the
data yielded a y-intercept that was assumed to be the depression storage (in inches). Based on this
analysis, the assumed impervious depression storage was 0.06 inches and the pervious depression storage
was 0.17 inches. These values are in line with the range of values recommended in literature.
1.2
Hydraulic Modeling
1.2.1
Data detailing the storm sewer network for the area was provided by the cities of St Paul, Mendota
Heights, West St. Paul and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT). The storm sewer
data was provided in a GIS format, with the database file containing invert elevations, pipe sizes, pipe
lengths, and manhole rim elevations. Where storm sewer information was missing in the GIS data set, asbuilt drawings containing the storm sewer information were provided by the cities. A Mannings
roughness value of 0.013 was applied to each storm sewer pipe.
There are three culverts under Cherokee Heights Boulevard that serve as the three main stormwater
discharge points into the Brickyard Area of Lilydale Regional Park. The location of the storm sewer pipes
and the three culverts under Cherokee Heights Boulevard are shown in Large Figure 4-1 of the main
report.
1.2.2
Storage Areas
Three storage areas were included in the model: one located at the upstream end of the 18-inch culvert
Freemont Avenue culvert under Cherokee Heights/TH13, one just upstream of the 60-inch culvert under
Cherokee Heights Boulevard, and a depression area located to the south of Simard Street and north of
Miriam Street. Storage curves describing the elevation/area relationship were developed in GIS for each
of these storage areas using the 2011 MNDNR LiDAR elevation data set.
1.2.3
Since there is no known storm sewer pipe system actively conveying water within the Brickyard Area of
Lilydale Regional Park, runoff from the Brickyard Area downstream of Cherokee Heights Boulevard
generally flows overland following the slope of the land. Runoff from the three main stormwater
discharge points (described above) flows into overland channels through the Brickyard Area. The
overland channels were modeled as natural channel cross-sections. Channel lengths, upstream and
downstream channel elevations, and channel shape were determined using the 2011 MNDNR LiDAR
elevation data set. A Mannings roughness value of 0.05 was applied to each of the natural channel crosssections.
A street overland flow channel network was also added to the upstream portion of the study area served
by storm sewer. All street sections are represented in the XP-SWMM model using a trapezoidal channel
with a 30-foot bottom width, 1:1 side slopes, and a Mannings roughness value of 0.014. Street elevations
were determined using the 2011 MNDNR LiDAR elevation data set. All surface runoff that is surcharged
or exceeds the capacity from the Freemont Avenue and Cherokee Heights storm sewer systems is routed
4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix D - Stormwater Modeling Methodology
through overland flow street channels into the Cherokee Heights basin, through the 60-inch culvert under
Cherokee Heights, and into the Cherokee Heights ravine (modeled using a natural channel cross-section).
5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix D - Stormwater Modeling Methodology
2.0
References
Barr Engineering, 2001. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Bloomington Use Attainability Analysis
NOAAs National Weather Service Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PFDS) located at
http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/
USDA, 2014. Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database Users Guide. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. April 2014.
U.S. EPA, 1988. Storm Water Management Model, Version 4: Users Manual
Xian, G., Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Hossain, N., and Wickham, J., 2011. The change of impervious surface
area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing, Vol. 77(8): 758-762.
6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621151 Lilydale Reg Park SW Mgmt & Sl\WorkFiles\8 Report\Appendix D - Stormwater Modeling Methodology